The current solar maximum is also one of the strongest yet recorded.
Posts by DavidN
-
-
-
Exercise is not very conductive to pleasure as it's mostly a painful activity. It also not as health-promoting as it's usually made out to be. Harvard professor Daniel Lieberman makes the case in the linked book below that humans have not evolved to exercise.
Observations of hunter gatherers today who spend much of the day just sitting around suggest that our remote ancestors were in fact no less couch potatoes than we are. Dan Buettner who has studied populations around the globe with a high concentration of people blessed with stunning longevity shows their lifestyles to have many traits in common. Among these traits and perhaps the most surprising is the fact that they never exercise. Instead, they tend to engage in lots of natural low-Intensity physical activity, mostly just walking around.
As Lieberman shows, the commodification of exercise today has led to unnecessary hustles, psychogical pressures, weird mental complexes, injuries and expenses. Even in antiquity there were those who said that people highly passionate about exercise are weird. Fitness junkie Ross Enamait who wrote some excellent training manuals says he's been called crazy for his fitness passion.
What are your personal views on the issue? Does exercise make a lot of sense from an Epicurean point of view? Why shouldn't the time and money spent torturing the body with high-Intensity exercises just for some vague notion of 'feeling good about yourself' and impressing your 'bros' not be better invested in more pleasurable activities? Epicurus sure loved visiting the theater but as far I know he didn't visit gyms at all. Do we have any evidence that he did?
Metrodorus would say that we should endure lesser pains to enjoy greater pleasures or avoid greater pains. From this line of thought we should expect that if we live an overly sedentary life as many people do in modern times, that artificial exercise might be necessary as maintenance for health.
The hunter gathers and farmers of our ancestry may have not engaged in what we consider exercise, however they did engage in greater physical activity than modern day humans in many ways. Early hunters were endurance hunters, long distance runner who would need to stalk prey upto 8 hours a day. Whatever they may have done with their down time I think their time spent hunting would outweigh their sedentary time. In the same way anyone who has worked on a farm can attest to the same physical nature of farm life. These lifestyles didn't need the addition of what we consider exercise as it was built into there lifestyle.
I do agree that alot of the mentality around modern exercise is likely unhealthy, this however does not negate the benefits of moderate exercise applied to an otherwise sedentary lifestyle.
-
Ancient Epicureanism is not a political philosophy and as far as we can tell Epicurus deosn't seem to have written a single major work about government, politics and the like. The Epicureans also never mounted a serious polemic effort against Christianity because by the time Christianity was ascendant Epicureanism was not even on the radar as a competitor anymore.
There's a principal doctrine on the benefits of proper government. Even without the lost work on kingship this points to a discussion within the Epicurean community about the proper place of government. KYRIA DOXA 6: In order that men might not fear one another, there was a natural benefit to be had from government and kingship, provided that they are able to bring about this result.
Lucian's The Death of Peregrinus, may not be as direct an attack on christianity as Celsus True word, but is still an attack on the character and dogma of the early christian cults.
-
Sprat sounds like candlefish we have here. I've seen people lined up along the pass hauling in bucks of candle fish during spawning. But you'll never see them on a menu. "The name "candlefish" derives from it being so fatty during spawning, with up to 15% of the total body weight in fat, that if caught, dried, and strung on a wick, it can be burned as a candle."
-
Having an egalitarian ethos is not the same thing as being egalitarian in the sense of having an egalitarian political agenda. Epicurus had an egalitarian ethos insofar as he allowed women and slaves to join his school and declared that philosophy is useful for all humans and not just an elite training programme for those males aspring to excellence and virtue. But he certainly wasn't egalitarian in the sense that he wanted to abolish slavery or institute common ownership of wealth or women. Some radical ideas along those lines did exist in those centuries and the comedian Aristophanes mocks some of them.
Epicurus rejected mainstream culture but saw no need to replace it, counsel it or modify it and in that sense he was apolitical.
Though modern egalitarian movements may confuse socialism and egalitarianism, I would refrain from making the same mistake.
In Epicurean terms, slavery was an eventum, an accident that might befall a person, not a coniunctum, something inseparable from a person's nature (contrary to modern slavery). From this perspective Epicureans didn't need to support or oppose slavery as it wasn't part of a persons identity, but was instead an event in life. Also by allowing slaves to learn in there schools Epicureans could have been facilitating the escape of slaves because slavery in Rome was not ethnically based. If a slave could learn Latin and pass themselves off as a citizen they could have escaped and tried to start over outside the empire.
Though I agree that Epicurus was apolitical, I would deny your assertion that he had no desire to "replace, counsel or modify" mainstream culture. By providing an alternative path for people he was doing just that. His was simply a "passive resistance" by building what was effectively a parallel culture.
-
I don't think centralized hierarchical structures are compatible with Epicureanism. Self-suficiency, being an epicurean virtue, is increasingly stifled the more centralized and top heavy power structures becomes. I also don't agree with your analysis of the decline of epicureanism in late antiquity, from what I've read most scholars think that in the face of environmental and societal changes the appeal of Epicureanism to the general populis declined.
It's not that they were destined to fail, it's just that civilization does everything in its power to destroy such communities and it invariably succeeds because it is resourceful, aggressive and ruthless. It is no accident that resourcefulness, aggression and competition have always been civilizational virtues. It is precisely those traits that civilization needs to sustain itself.
Your concept of civilization, though likely accurate, isn't sustainable in a finite universe. It's faults are the same as modern "Growth Economics." (hard to find a good link for this one sorry). Eventually aggressive competitive civilizations, though efficient at subduing wildlands, eventually burn thru exploitable resources in a finite system. Where as egalitarian and cooperative systems may not be competitive against more aggressive systems. However as lower maintenance systems, they are more competitive when set against entropy in a finite system. As such they would outperform in the long run, and may be necessary as a social evolutionary change. But again I'm getting out into the political weeds here so Ima just leave it at that.
-
I don't think centralized hierarchical structures are compatible with Epicureanism. Self-suficiency, being an epicurean virtue, is increasingly stifled the more centralized and top heavy power structures becomes. I also don't agree with your analysis of the decline of epicureanism in late antiquity, from what I've read most scholars think that in the face of environmental and societal changes the appeal of Epicureanism to the general populis declined.
Non-hierarchical forms of social organization are known to be indefinitely viable only in the case of immediate-return hunter-gatherers which today can hardly be said to exist anymore. They represent way less than 1% of the global population. All other egalitarian experiments from within civilization have failed and in the rare case where they were politically successful (starting with revolutionary France) produced nothing more than mass terror and hideous dictatorships. In my view civilization and egalitarianism cannot possibly co-exist and that's why even numerous non-political small-scale egalitarian experiments in the West have failed too. It's not that they were destined to fail, it's just that civilization does everything in its power to destroy such communities and it invariably succeeds because it is resourceful, aggressive and ruthless.
I was not positing non-hierarchical structures, Anarchy is always short lived, that's polisci 101. Even hunter gather societies have hierarchy. I was talking specifically about centralized hierarchy vs decentralized hierarchy. The french revolution since you mentioned it is the perfect segue into another polisci 101 topic, Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". As Tocqueville discovers, the reason democracy succeeds in America where it fails in France is in the decentralized nature of colonial America vs the centralized nature of European (cities) countries. Jefferson alludes to this in his agrarianism musing about his vision for America's future in his "Notes on the State of Virginia". I don't want to get to into the weeds of political discourse on the forums so if your interested in my personal line of study I'll leave a list of points for your perusal. Otherwise ignore the following section.
The Swiss Cantons: an example of a successful decentralized form of government used by the Founders as an example of a successful form of confederacy.
Leading to The Confederation period from which we inherit many of our current checks and balances in government.
A number of Intentional Communities have been experimenting with novel forms of Decentralized Hierarchical structures that have been, in there own small way, successful and are worth consideration. (And are proof that your view of failed egalitarian experiments is a misconception, just because some may fail does not negate the fact that some succeed.)
As centralized hierarchical structures will always be adversely affected and constrained by The Iron Law Of Oligarchy, as laid out in Robert Michels' "Political Parties". (also polisci 101)
Decentralized structures must be considered as a viable path otherwise you can never escape Kyklos.
I'd also point out Hobbes and Lockes work in contractual government but I need to revisit this material myself, I think somewhere in this is an Epicurean treatise on proper government but I need to do some work on it.
-
I don't think centralized hierarchical structures are compatible with Epicureanism. Self-suficiency, being an epicurean virtue, is increasingly stifled the more centralized and top heavy power structures becomes. I also don't agree with your analysis of the decline of epicureanism in late antiquity, from what I've read most scholars think that in the face of environmental and societal changes the appeal of Epicureanism to the general populis declined.
What was so special about the social and environmental conditions in the centuries when Epicureanism was popular as opposed to those when it declined? Nothing much really. It was the same old agrarian society. In any case Christianity and Islam have survived plenty of devastating social shifts and the same should be demanded of any successful creed aiming at the hearts of as many people as possible.
What was special, a decline into the dark ages. There were huge environmental and social. upheavals. A person could make a living studying them as a system. From volcanic activity and tectonic shifts, to deforestation and desertification. Especially poignant was Romes rate of desertification leading to widespread famine. https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hw…foID=1382439579 The degradational power of imperialism at it's finest. The Empire was not just the same old period of agrarianism, it was in fact quite the opposite. If anything, seen as a whole it is a great example of the destructive powers of unnecessary and unnatural desires.
-
The master of this world will soon come after you and crucify you.
I believe that this poetic metaphor (and some of the other ideas in the above post) doesn't lead to finding good health and happiness of the soul. In fact it distracts from seeing the world "as it is". The best way to do that is start with your own life, and ask yourself: are you feeling more pleasure than pain? If not, why not? And what can you do to make your life more pleasant? And then remember that there will always be problems in the world, but if you say to yourself that you can't live a good life until all problems in the world are solved, then you will miss out on your one opportunity to experience what Nature endowed us with: the ability to experience pleasure. And we maximize it by using prudence, which also means that we "choose our fights" as some things just beyond our influence or our control. Don't miss out on making this one life as best as it can be - we only live once - and look for the goodness and pleasure that you can experience while you are yet alive.
You see, Epicureanism has an egalitarian ethos and a tendency to want to opt out of mainstream culture (traits that it shares with early Christianity and some egalitarian movements in the modern era) but it also shows little interest in fighting or provoking same mainstream culture. I think there was an Epicurean strategy of 'faked conformism' which explains why for example Epicurus and his followers continued to participate in religious rituals and pretended to be as pious as everyone else (I agree that they were not atheists in the modern Anglo-American sense but they were definitely far from traditional polytheists) or why the Epicureans never experimented with things like common ownership of wealth even though the acquisition of wealth and luxuries runs contrary to a marked preference for minimalism. To illustrate how strong the Epicurean tendency for minimalism was consider the cause of Epicurus' death. His kidney disease likely came about as a result of an extremely low-fat diet.
The "tendency to opt out" of contemporary culture in Epicureanism is meant to be a personal strategy for ataraxia. Throughout ~700 hundred year classical period Epcirureans were not meek submissive bystandards to history. They wrote scathing works against other philosophical schools, participated in the roman civil war on both sides, actively tried to suppress the christian cults, etc. What they did not do is hide in there gardens and try to "conform" to society. They were popular at the time for the very reason that they gave people a real alternative to mainstream culture. To the original point, If Epicurus was "faking" piety for the sake of conformity, then why would he take the time to write his own theory of the gods. Rather if your theory were correct Epicurus would have simply stated that it is easier and more pleasurable to simply conform to common culture, which is not a tenet of epicurean philosophy. Instead I posit that the idea of Gods was more ingrained in humanity than you think, that it is easy for us now to accept a world devoid of Gods, but at the time it was a more difficult concept to grasp. But instead what Epicureans did was to create a theory of the Gods that depersonalizes them, and removes them as a weapon of the priesthood. Which was a much easier idea to come to at the time, because as Epicurus noted, "everyman worships his own god."
-
If gods are suppose to be perfect, at least epicurean gods. should you not look to epicureans utility of the gods for there utility towards perfection.
-
I just wanted to pop on and thank Onenski for the thought provoking discussion, I haven't actually considered the Holonomic Brain theory in almost a quarter century. Now that I'm reconsidering it in the context of free will, and considering free will in the context of a programming break for the purposes of debugging, It might solve one of the biggest problems in Epistemology of AI. How learning takes place, how does one break from cause and effect programming and apply new knowledge, or even test new knowledge. An error in logic as the process of learning rather than true error is very human. Almost wish I still worked in that field cause now that I think I might have figured it out I have no idea who I'd approach with my hypothesis. Although to be honest given enough time to considered and weigh the choice I'd probably still make the same choice I did when i left the field, and simply let my curiosity go. Anyways I don't actually have much time today, I have an previous obligation to get to. Just popped on to say great discussion everyone, thanks.
-
I'd say it's a four horseman scenario, the power of supernatural religion attempts to assert on people goes well beyond idealism. We could dedicate an entirely new thread to list the ways religion attempts to hold power over peoples lives. Of the four I would say, as I'm sure most if not all epicureans before us woulds agree, that religion is by far the more dangerous. Unless this warrants giving religion a category of its own.
-
Free will is still on the table depending on how you interpret it. Some, only Some, view it in the terms of an absolute. Which in my previous statements I deny in terms, as simply bad logic. If you take it at it's definition without bias it is simply "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded." Not the actions itself nor the number or quality of choices to be made. What then are impediments to choice. Neurological impairment perhaps. Ignorance only decreases the number and quality of our choices, experience and genetics informs them or may alter the number of choices see previous category. Prudence and reason likewise need only inform not impede. The physical world only limits action, changes the quality of outcomes and thus informs our choice, but does not necessarily limit them. So what actually stops us if anything from making a choice at all. If you take for instance the lucid dreamer, who's environment is entirely of his own making and who's limits are that of his imagination, what are his impediments. What actually impedes the mechanism of turning thought to action, or even thought into another string of thoughts. When making a choice are we even then confronted with choices to consider about the choice. Whether to be bold or cautious, prudent or carefree. Though these choices may seem autonomic at times, dictated by ones character, do we not on occasion act out of character or even develop and change in manner and taste. Are these changes in character truly forced upon us or are they even then choices to be made.
-
I think it's time for an Administrative comment targeted mainly at those who might lurk and be reading this thread without knowing anything about the major participants.
Those who know Onenski know that he is a highly valued participant of long standing who has piled up tremendous amounts of credibility points for his general support and interest in Epicurean philosophy over many months, even years. He is a regular in our meetings and he is always constructive and helpful.
Onenski's posts in favor of determinism certainly contradict a key aspect of Epicurean philosophy, and a long series of pro-determinist arguments would violate our forum policies, as we are not here to invite in people who are dedicated to anti-Epicurean positions. We don't have to all agree on every issue, but we do need to respect that this is a pro-Epicurean forum, and those who conclude that their beliefs require them to be a constant thorn in the side of those who support Epicurus will eventually be shown the door. More to the point, there are many "outsiders" who - if they came into the forum and pursued determinist arguments strongly - would have their posting privileges restricted or removed.
We just don't have the time to patronize the many Stoics and other anti-Epicureans who are determinists and would be happy to monopolize our time. We also don't need to expose our sincere lurkers and newer participants to the demoralizing aspects of determinism any more than is necessary.
However this is a topic that will never go away, and people who study Epicurus will be regularly confronted by it, just as was Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans. It's important for people to have at least a basic understanding of the arguments and to have a basic understanding of where Epicurus stood on the issue, and that's why this thread is continuing and why the posters here aren't violating the letter or the spirit of our forum rules.
We should thank Onenski and others for their respectful postings on this topic, as the thread is becoming an excellent resource for the future.
Since Epicurus strongly opposed determinism, and held that praise and blame can be attached to actions regardless of what the determinists argue, we can simply remind anyone who might be tempted by the leeway we offer to established members that we will happily wield the ban hammer when necessary for the protection of the purposes of the forum.
No one at this point is anywhere near needing this warning, but given that the related issues of determinism and skepticism have proven in the past to be two of the best indicators of the division between those who stay with Epicurean philosophy and those who are just "passing through" on their way somewhere else, this can serve as a marker to assist in future moderating decisions.
I agree with Cassius I definitely appreciate Onenski and his questions and participation, even if I don't share his opinion, without it I wouldn't be able to delve so deeply into my own.
-
I take the opportuniy to ask you something. In your point of view, who has free will and where is its origin? Do non-human animals, or other beings, have free will? Can they be morally responsible?
I didn't understand the last paragraph, I'm sorry.Thanks for asking this question, I've actually spent some time debating and contemplating this topic, I even went so far as to write to one of my favorite authors David Brin who wrote a series based around this question and who is an advocate of animal rights. In my opinion it is a spectrum of intelligence leading to sentience, with the cutoff being defined quite correctly by Epicurus as the covenant to not harm one another. And as such I believe he correctly reached the conclusion that those creatures and people who cannot or will not abide by this covenant are outside of justice and morality. As Pacatus stated earlier about harming a child, such an act would place you outside the realm of justice and morality as you are unable to abide by the covenant and I don't believe Pacatus would be in violation of epicurean justice or morality in acting to stop such an event.
As to who has free will, as I said earlier free will would be measured by an entities capacity to recognize and conceptually break from cause and effect, and it's capacity to act contrary to it's own nature. As to its origin I could only speculate. I know when I was a younger philosopher I was quite enamored with the Holonomic Brain Theory, If you accept conventional theories of the indeterminates in wave theory then the Holonomic brain allows for indeterminates in its function, the level of complexity of which could explain free will. But again I'll fully admit to this being entirely speculative.
-
how does believing that everything you do is predetermined enhance a person's happiness?
It's a belief about how the world is. It is what it is. Besides, Sapolsky believes, for example, that many people can feel liberated from regrets and guilts (I guess specially the belief that their circumstance it's their fault).
I find this view to simply be escapism, a desire to no longer be responsible for ones own life, which to me strips life of all it's meaning.
how does believing that everything you do is predetermined enhance a person's happiness?
I think it can contribute to certain amount of individual serenity, and if more people agree with it, it can lead to a society more just. Imagine how happily can people live if the practical political, social and economic problems are solved in their roots instead of just blaming and punishing.
Being that I am professionally trained in root cause analysis I can tell you that the first rule is that if you get the root cause wrong all attempts to fix the problem will fail at best and more likely spider out into new problems confusing the original issue.
So onto root cause, in your deterministic world were is root cause. If there is never any choice only a endless stream of cause and effect to follow back infinitum, can there even be root cause? There can be no guilt because there can be no choice, no error, only necessity. There is infact nothing in this world to fix. Criminals will be criminals without any choice because of prior cause. Authorities will continue to punish criminals because the criminal behavior is a prior cause. etc Ad infinitum.
However when we add in choice, we have a conceptual break in the chain of cause and effect. To which we can contribute root cause and into which we can insert change.
-
Those who defend that every event has prior causes are determinists.1. I'd like to suggest a question: why the burden of proof is on the side of skeptics of free will and not the other way.
4. DavidN, your reconstructions are straw-man fallacies. The Victimhood argument particularly, besides being more ironic than descriptive, goes into revictimization. Addictions, for example, are public health problems, not a mere matter of choice.
The chapter dedicated to Quantum Mechanics in Determined I think is very reasonable. Do you think was simplistic?
5. I highly recommend to read Sapolsky's Behave, even more than Determined in order to understand his point. Sapolsky offers a reconstruction of the causes of behaviour. The evidence he finds obvioulsy is not conclusive, but he adds to the debate the picture some people need to see how strongly, using Pacatus terms, our decisions are constrained.The fact that Causes exist does not necessitate determinism, this is a False Dichotomy fallacy. A cause could lead to multiple outcomes and in reverse any given event can have multiple causes, as Epicurus already theorizes. In reality A does not necessitate B. This is one of the reasons root cause analysis is difficult and most people are not successful at it.
The reason determinism requires proof rather than the other way around, atleast on this thread, is because the question at hand is not whether or not the universe is deterministic but is epicureanism deterministic or even compatible with determinism. Which is Not part of my argument you addressed. And because I loath the practice of applying theoretical science outside of it's intended field. When Quantum gravity becomes hard science Sapolsky can republish his book and not be a jerk in my eyes.
As for Sapolsky's science, his version of quantum mechanics requires that we eliminate singularities, alter the currently accepted notion of the big bang and accept new theories in there place, of quantum gravity, and of multiple quantum universes that removes variables rather than adding variables. In all of this I find his math to be at the very least overly convenient if not simplistic. Like Planck's Blackbody, instead of dealing with the variables he simply finds ways to eliminate them. Which is what I had suspected in my previous comment before even diving into his work.
Back to the matter at hand, Epicurus. I don't believe hard determinism can be reconciled with Epicureanism, but to be fair lets say it can. You would need to tackle the swerve, because as long as the swerve exists a cause or set of causes can lead to a number of effects or none at all, thus determinism cannot exist. Without the swerve you effectively render epicurean physics Democritean. You would then have to go through all the material and reconcile every instance were choice is required, because concept of choice would require a non-deterministic universe. In deterministic terms choice simply becomes effect. Effectively rendering the philosophy pointless, IMHO.
The idea of Free Will Skepticism it's not that people don't make choices. The idea is that those choices are not independent of prior causes (in fact, that they are constrained totally, even if we don't see it). People will keep making choices, the difference will be how independent they think they are.
Two fallacies here, one Persuasive definition, choice is improperly used or defined here. If a choice is completely constrained, as your trying to prove, it's not a choice it becomes effect following cause. Secondly affirming the consequent fallacy, again just because B does not mean A. Free will is choice, prior cause does not negate choice but informs choice, it is the very reason for choice. In fact without prior cause what choice would we have, there would be nothing to choose. If your hung up on the word free lets examine freedom. Some people think freedom can only exist in a vacuum, but in reality freedom cannot exist in a vacuum, it is a concept devoid of meaning in a vacuum. Freedom can only have meaning in the face of tyranny, choice can only have meaning when cause and effect exist. Prior causes create our environment, the situation, the consequences, that inform, but do not necessitate our actions. The fact that my choice could be for any hundreds of reasons, is essential to free will not the antecedent of it.
Your argument also makes choice into machina by turning it into simple cause and effect. For this to be true machina and sentience must be closer than they actually are in reality. Which I find to be even more of an oversimplification on the part of determinists in behavior than in physics. Having a background in AI I can assure you this is not the case. It makes my blood boil every time someone comepares the glorified word processors that are the current generation of large language transformer modules to true AI. They aren't even good language models yet. Yet even some scientists make the mistake of granting them the mantle of sentience. This simply isn't the case even though they have the capacity to learn they don't have the capacity to deviate from they're programming, only the ability to add to there library. This is the crux of the argument. Machina have to be right, even if its only within there limited understanding of what that is. It cannot deviate from that, any deviation is in error. I on the other hand, have on occasion, chosen to be wrong, just to be a dick rather than in error. I am sentient, I have that choice, I get to sit in jail for a nite just to feel free. You could say that I have some internal drive towards that outcome created by some prior cause, but this does not necessitate the outcome. In fact prior cause gives me a greater range of outcomes not less, thus where you see constraint I see tools of expression, of freedom. In that instance I know and understand what I'm doing, I have the choice to do the right thing and not be a dick, to simply walk away, an easier choice to be honest. I know and understand that in the moment, but because I have the freedom to choose in that instance I decide to take the road less traveled. A decision, a choice.
-
But to the actual topic I agree with the general direction of the thread, that with practice we should gain some control over our own emotional state, but that extreme circumstances can and do disrupt this. However I would suggest that if you find yourself anxious about the state of the world, that unless the chaos has reached your doorstep, you take Epicurus advice and stop doom scrolling... I mean retreat from the clamor of public life. I find 99% of news feeds to be Narratives devoid of facts anyways. I generally have to be really interested in a topic if I'm going to dig around and find enough facts to piece together a coherent picture.
-
This is the case while we are fully conscious with properly functioning mind. However, while we are asleep and therefore our ability to use logic is turned off, they can temporarily come back.
Wait your waking and sleeping states are different. When I used to work drilling my sleep deprivation would get so bad I'd dream with my eyes open. I occasionally start to dream while I'm still half conscious as-well. And whenever my dreams become coherent and are more than just a random shuffling of sensations I'm generally fully aware that I'm dreaming, and can choose to wake or continue with the dream. When I was a child I literally killed all my nightmares, took alot of work to gain that much control over my dream state but now it's pretty easy. All it took was the suggestion from my father that I could control my dreams, and I was off to hunt my monsters. Sometimes I'll get annoyed with the irrational parts of my dreams and think to myself 'well that doesn't make any sense' and then go about editing out the nonsensical junk. Though generally I don't like to use that much energy when I'm suppose to be resting so I just go with the flow as long as it's tolerable.
Unread Threads
-
- Title
- Replies
- Last Reply
-
-
-
Was De Rerum Natura intended as satire? A lecture by THM Gellar-Goad. 14
- Julia
October 24, 2024 at 4:03 PM - General Discussion of "On The Nature of Things"
- Julia
November 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM
-
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 984
14
-
-
-
-
New Slideshow: Nothing Comes From Nothing
- Cassius
November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM - General Discussion
- Cassius
November 10, 2024 at 3:51 PM
-
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 242
-
-
-
-
So You Want To Learn Ancient Greek Or Latin? 72
- burninglights
November 17, 2023 at 8:20 PM - General Discussion
- burninglights
November 10, 2024 at 11:18 AM
-
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 11k
72
-
-
-
-
Questions re Pleasure 2
- Matteng
November 9, 2024 at 5:35 AM - General Discussion
- Matteng
November 9, 2024 at 3:50 PM
-
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 345
2
-
-
-
-
Video Games For Mental Focus and Relaxation 1
- Cassius
November 9, 2024 at 2:22 PM - General Discussion
- Cassius
November 9, 2024 at 3:22 PM
-
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 306
1
-