Posts by BrainToBeing

You all might find this of interest. It is a question I asked Poe, which uses ChatGPT3.5, regarding Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the current era of brain knowledge. Poe provided a good answer, I think.

Question: Based on the perspectives we now have in the scientific era, which of the two philosophies, Epicurean and Stoic, is more consistent with scientific knowledge about brain biology and function?

Poe:

Both Epicurean and Stoic philosophies, as ancient schools of thought, predate our modern scientific understanding of brain biology and function. Therefore, it's important to note that neither philosophy was developed with knowledge of neuroscience or contemporary scientific concepts.

However, if we were to consider the compatibility of Epicurean and Stoic philosophy with our current scientific understanding, some aspects of Epicureanism seem to align more closely with scientific knowledge about brain biology and function. Epicurean philosophy's emphasis on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain can be seen as compatible with the brain's reward system, which is involved in the experience of pleasure and the motivation to pursue pleasurable experiences. Additionally, the recognition of emotions as natural signals related to pleasure and pain resonates with our understanding of the role of emotions in brain processes.

On the other hand, Stoic philosophy's emphasis on emotional detachment and the suppression of emotions may not align as directly with current scientific understanding. While it is true that the brain can regulate and modulate emotions, the Stoic goal of completely suppressing or eradicating emotions may not align with our understanding of the brain's natural functioning.

It's important to note that philosophical perspectives and scientific knowledge are distinct domains of inquiry. The ancient philosophies, including Epicureanism and Stoicism, offer insights into ethics, human nature, and the pursuit of a good life, which can still be valuable today. However, when it comes to explaining brain biology and function, the scientific method and empirical evidence are the primary tools we rely on.

Quote from Kalosyni

It seems that you are coming from a mindset that makes it difficult for you to think about the benefits of Epicurean philosophy, because it appears you don't agree with some basic concepts of Epicurean philosophy

Kalosyni You might be right Kalosyni. Indeed, I do have a different view of "meaning" and the "search for meaning" at an existential level. And, at a very big level I may have a different view entirely. That is, in my view all philosophies are opinions - perspectives of life and living. The opinions have "fought" with each other forever, in a kind of tribalism - just as the Epicureans and the Stoics fought two hundred years BCE. We humans seem to like to "land on" (choose) one philosophy or another (or religion or another) and then we tend to defend that position as "the right" one. I don't think that way. So, maybe I really don't fit here. Again, it is not my intent to be an iconoclast. So, if it is true that I don't "think like" others here then I will say "thank you" (for the wonderful perspectives you have shared), and I'll move on.

Thinking of it, maybe that is best. So, a hearty "Thank You". And, exit - stage left.

Perhaps this belongs in this column. It is from the excellent article referenced by Don in #37 above: "In fact, Marcus [Aurelius] admits that if Epicurean natural science were right, he would fall into despair. Without providence, he asks, 'Why care about anything?'" So, is this a pivotal issue: caring? That is, vis a vis Victor Frankl and the search for meaning. If we seek to avoid pain and find pleasure are we thereby finding meaning? Or, do we need to look further? Thoughts?

Quote from Don

But I firmly believe Epicurus also got a great deal of pleasure, enjoyment, and satisfaction from participating the religious rites of his city.

Don You know much more about his preferences than I do. I would imagine that, in that era, religions were one center of social interactions - just as they are now. So, just as now, there may be participants who are there more for socialization than edification or "being saved". Certainly we don't want to take anything away from him (and couldn't). Yet, I do think we are trying not only to understand him but also how think about his conclusions in the context of today.

Overall, I'm happy to have people reach whatever conclusions regarding these spiritual topics that they like, as long as they allow the same for me. We're all just trying to figure out how to get through this game, in my view.

One more thing, right at the beginning of DeWitt he says this about Epicurus: "The man himself was revered as an ethical father, a savior, and a god."

Think about that in the current context. It is an allusion to the whole topic of humans seeking to "deify" other humans. What motivation rests below that tendency? And, how does that bear on the larger discussion of piety? Both questions are worthy of discussion in the current context.

Cassius Very well said! Indeed, until someone has solid, objective proof of God or gods, it will be a matter of belief and opinion. This has certainly been obvious through the ages as endless versions of belief on the issue have come (and gone). Thus, in this erudite group it is entirely appropriate to keep the discussion open, with allowance for various points of view. And, conversely, anyone who opines that they know the answer to this existential issue will be called upon to prove it.

Quote from Don

"Epicurus feigned piety to protect his skin"

Don It would not be the first time, nor the last. Certainly, the posturing of Descartes in the first few pages of "Meditations on First Philosophy" clearly suggest he was seeking to avoid the fate of Galileo, only a few years prior.

Quote from Nate

Through a study of Epicurean Philosophy, I came to acknowledge that the human impulse to practice piety is natural, and that the idealization of role models as deities is an equally natural practice that we observe in disconnected human societies

Thanks Eikadistes , very good entry!

So, indeed, "came to acknowledge that the human impulse to practice piety is natural." Yet, we can ask why it is natural. One possibility is that we do somehow sense a bigger sentience than our own at work. Possible, not proven.

There is another possibility. It could be that all religions and "the impluse to practice piety" are basically derivatives and metaphor of the parent-child relationship. It is proven neurobiology that our behavioral constructs operate, in broad overview, in the "onion" metaphor - layers built upon one another. Unquestionably we see that behavioral constructs formed in childhood ramify into adulthood. Some of this is the foundation of prejudice. Some of this is the foundation of personality styles. Some of this is the foundation for career choices. Some of this is the foundation of likes and dislikes.

One our very earliest and most fundamental behaviors is to look for caregivers as the source of support and solace. A baby's first impulse is to cry - a behavior of no utility if there is no expectation that someone will listen. We grant caregivers priority in our choices and behaviors until about age 2, at which point a personalized "self" begins to advocate for authority.

So, this fundamental behavioral paradigm - seeking solace and support from a more powerful "other" - is built in. You may take it from there.

Cheers

Quote from Don

Dewitt's book is available to read on Internet Archive.

Thank you!! Because I can get it as PDF this also means I can highlight quotes for later consideration and/or review. Very helpful! Thanks again Don

Quote from Cassius

Not many people are going to agree on what, if **anything** has been learned "philosophically" in the last 2000 years. Lots of ink has been spilled for sure, but has the conversation really progressed in substance since the Greco-Roman debates of 2000 years ago? I think a considerable number of people would argue that philosophy has *regressed* since that time. And that's the kind of question that needs to be addressed. Is spilling ink and chasing rabbits really progress showing that certain things have been learned? The big questions of life seem to remain the big questions of life from age to age.

See, this is EXACTLY why I am here. You and colleagues are smart and educated. You can consider questions of these types. AND you bring a wealth of knowledge about what was written those many years ago. So, you and your colleagues are exactly the right people to consider "what have we learned" as a way of considering "where are we going".

I am learning good things from you and your colleagues! Were it not for your site, and the way you make these discussions available, I would not have spent any significant time on the classical philosophers. This would not be because I thought they had nothing to say. With emphasis, "THEY DO, STILL!" But, I would have followed Antoine de St. Exupery's observation, "More wisdom is latent in things as they are than in all the words [or ink] men use." HOWEVER, you and your colleagues make the investigation of these past writings relevant. So, thank you!

I'm doing my "homework". The most recent DeWitt is not currently available on Amazon; so, I've gotten a couple of others on Epicurus and Lucretius in the interim.

Cheers!

Quote from Cassius

Of what necessary relevance is it to the question of whether a particular idea is correct whether it is 2000 years old or 2 minutes old.

At least to my way of thinking the issue is how people form their lives and actions around an idea. For example, based on beliefs extant at the time, two thousand years ago humans sacrificed other humans, and many animals, "to the gods". I think it is important that we have a different view now.

Certainly healthcare treatments have changed dramatically in the ensuing 2000 years, based on major changes in perspectives of causes for illness. As far as I know no one has objectively treated cancer, sepsis or Parkinson's disease effectively via praying to Sekhmet.

So, to my way of thinking, the ultimate issue is what we do. And, what we do depends upon our whole framework for understanding the world and our place in it. In this regard I think things have changed a lot in 2000 years. Thus, in relevance to these esteemed pages of EpicureanFriends, I think it is important to consider what we have learned philosophically in the last 2000 years.

You all, who have studied the early writings so diligently, are probably in the best position to address what we have learned, and what we haven't learned. Thus I have asked. Cheers.

Thank you Cassius . Let me do some study and then I'll be back.

Best to you!

Thanks very much to you, Cassius and Martin . Very helpful.

For me these pursuits are primarily just interesting. I'm comfortable with who I am and where my path leads. And, it is not my intent to be a disruptive iconoclast. So, I'll get DeWitt's book and drop out until I have read it.

Best to you. The site you have built and moderate is excellent.

B to B

Bryan Thanks Bryan. We would disagree on many things. Yet, that is fine.

Best to you.

I need some help from you all on how to think about studying Epicurean philosophy.

The leaders in EpicureanFriends have devoted great time to the study of perspectives derived 2000 years ago. So, the question: How does this devotion lead you to life perspectives for today that you could not derive from similar effort to examining the world today?

This is not meant or intended to be a challenge. It is not that at all. Rather, it is a question about how the philosophical frameworks of two millennia ago are the same or different from today.

I'm listening to episode 200 of the podcasts. And, I've gotten "On The Nature of Things". And, I am ready to dive into The Letter to Menoeceus. But, before "going down the rabbit hole" I'm wondering if any of you can reflect on this issue of bringing "then" to "now". Thanks to any who wish to jump in. ( Joshua You referenced the concept of such application in Episode 200).

When considering this it is interesting that a recurrent human behavior is to look for sages of long ago as frames of reference for today. Religions do this. Philosophies do this. Politics does this. It is an interesting generalization.

Anyway, thanks for any who can help me in this investigation.

Quote from Bryan

Thank you for the conversation.

Bryan And truly, thank you Bryan. This is much fun to discuss these things with people like you and your colleagues here.

I certainly agree with you that "justice" is a difficult one to encapsulate. It seems very much "in the eye of the beholder" or at least based on some vague sense of equivalence.

If justice is a particular interest of yours I'd be delighted to learn more about how you consider it.

Quote from Bryan

If images of friendship and thinking about 'the characteristics of friendship' were considered for thousands years to be a serious mental transgression, we would eventually expect some people to come to the conclusion that friendship is not real.

Bryan Good thoughts in #58; however, I disagree on this point. And the issue is rather pivotal. Friendship can be observed, and with psychological tests could even be measured (paper and soon/now fMRI). Whereas gods are always etherial (well...okay....Mickey the exception ). Seriously, the objective would always refute the claim to the contrary. On the other hand, gods, have always been presumptions without objective proof.

It can even be amusing. I live in Utah. The Mormons claim that Joseph Smith found gold tablets with God's inscriptions on them. Then, he lost those. Yeah, "Oh darn, where did I put those gold tablets??? I've looked in all my closets!" (I know, if you lived in Utah you would not say "Oh, darn", you would say "Oh, my heck". Just needed to clarify that.)

Quote from Bryan

Just because, from one viewpoint, some clouds are obfuscating a distant tower does not mean the tower does not exist.

That's true. However, if the tower is never visible....

Don A cool word. So then we have the problem of deciding when it is "over" active. Yet, no question it does occur, and frequently. Human brain evolution made pattern-deciphering a primary goal. We are able to see the lion hiding in the grasses, the spatula only by its handle hidden in a drawer of kitchen tools, and such. We are programmed to look for "partial match" situations and then to invoke what might be their whole. Most of the time this serves us well, and we use it every day, and basically all day long. Yet, it can be over-zealous, as you point out.

So, is "Creation!" an over-zealous attempt to look for a pattern where there is none? Hmmm.

When I was in high school, I remember learning basics of organic biology and wondering: why do the atoms bother? Why bother to gather energy, form complex organic molecules and propagate organic life? What's "in it" for the atoms? I have never found an answer to that question.

In the 1950s the famous experiments of Miller and Urey tried diligently to start life in a test tube. And, the experiment has been repeated in varying forms many times. Yes, we can make amino acids. But, we cannot make them "come alive" (gather energy, create creatures, reproduce). Further, as far as we can determine, life only began one time on this planet (maybe twice if we accept the extremophile archea as separate forms of life). This isolated event(s) is in spite of incalculable seeming opportunities for it to happen again on a planet full of self-propagating life.

So, does this argue for "Creation!"? No. As I said, I currently consider that question unanswered (and I leave it at that). But, it does raise the question why the atoms bother, as I wondered in high school.

Quote from Bryan

Even the Latin could mean that the 'thoughts' were "implanted in or grew up" with the mind (as Bailey points out).

Bryan  Don Kudos to both of you in these last entries. It is a lot of fun for me to discover you both and how much you know about the writings of the classical sages.

And, this gets us into the very fascinating arena of genetics and epigenetics. So, we come to the questions: 1) how much do we "know" genetically from our lineage, and 2) how much does this explain prolepsis (as classically conceived and represented here in EpicureanFriends)?

Your most recent entries suggests that Epicurus and his colleagues did have a sense of this, though they did not know the mechanics of it. And, if we accept that then we come - perhaps with hesitation - to creationist philosophies and the question whether there is some hidden "knowledge" of creation in us.

I've long thought that religions are largely adult extended metaphors derived of the parent-child relationship (the need of the baby to look for support in a parental figure). This is not a big jump. It easily explains such things as "God the Father". However, what if all of it is a form of prolepsis.

Okay, your turn, "run with the ball" as they say.

Quote from Bryan

I believe 'prolepsis' (ἡ πρόληψις) is simply a 'mental image.

Bryan Another good perspective. Indeed, it seems this word is complex. Let me ask: if I have a mental image of a pencil is that a form of prolepsis? Or does it require that I've used a pencil and have "feelings" about it and about the use of it?

Quote from Don

It appears there may have been confusion on both our parts on the use of that word.

Yes, I see the difference. And, I like the way you all use the word here.

Quote from Don

It's been variously translated into English as anticipation, preconception, and some other terms.

So, it sounds to me like prolepsis in the concept you use here is more akin to a deep form of recognition. I don't mean that like just recognizing a restaurant you've been to before. More like recognizing that restaurant for what it is in the culinary world. As if to say, "I know what they serve there, and the good dishes, and the kind waitress who helped us when illness made us leave early, and the busy days".

Does that sound right? If so, I really like and respect that use of the word: a deep form of recognition that implies intimate knowledge of a thing.