Search Results

In what way are the sense experiences of a person under the influence of psychedelics "true"? I can only make sense of "all sensations are true," as meaning "all sensations are experienced," or, "all sensations are sensed." If by "true", you mean, "corresponding to reality", I would have to say that statement is false. How would you respond?

(Quote) So far so good!

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, but if we agree that it is false as generally understood, what is the value of continuing to use it? Need to read the article though...perhaps all will become clear.

OK, so here is my summary of that article. Epicurus said something like "all sensations are true." He was arguing against skepticism, and he meant "real" (I would say, "actually experienced") as opposed to "factually correct". That he didn't mean "factually correct" is abundantly clear from other things he said. (Quote) I also liked the following quote, because it's something I had been thinking myself, as a response to idea that reason cannot refute the senses. (Quote)

(Quote from Cassius) That seems reasonable to me, but I'll admit that I'm not sure I completely understood Hahmann. Also, I found these two statements curious: (Quote from DeWitt) (Quote from Hahmann) Is Hahmann out-DeWitting DeWitt?!?!

(Quote from Little Rocker) DeWitt makes much ado about suspecting non-Epicurean sources (particularly Cicero) of not being honest in presenting Epicurus' views. Probably rightly so. I thought it was amusing that here we have a rare (possibly unique) case of DeWitt declaring a source to be unprejudiced, while another author is raising alarms. And you're right, that those two statements are technically not contradictory.