Heh, that's what's different to our ears about the Epicurean philosophy -- it's an authoritarian philosophy. It's the student who is wrong, rather than the master.

At least this is how the texts make sense to me.

And to make things even more confusing I'd point out that sometimes we don't really know what works for us, and others can tell better than we can. The only refrain here is to double-down on the value of individual freedom over other values.

But there's a hint there -- one of the goals of the Epicurean cure is autonomy. So what Epicurus aims to remove from the soul without your permission are the very things which inhibit a person from being free.

But surely there's no rule for that.

And yet -- there's value in reading a text from the standpoint of its own truth. While he is not my master I had to think through the text to really find the parts I disagreed with. There wasn't a list ahead of time. Else that would be one boring interpretation -- comparing what I already believe to what is stated and checking off the boxes.

Maybe it's best to say that Epicurus is one of the philosophical masters that I think people should study because there's something good in there.

Oh no, it couldn't work for me. There's no master to do the teaching, after all. In terms of how Epicureanism was lived the philosophy is basically dead.

I say The Master because I think that's the appropriate way to read the texts -- Epicurus was a dogmatist in the same way that a modern doctor is a dogmatist, in that you don't allow people to opt-in to sickness. I don't say it because he is my master.

Yes. Kant is using "dogma" in its traditional, non-rhetorical use. Which is not wrong, just very unusual. One of my problems here is precisely to distinguish "respectable" dogma from the disreputable kind. — Ludwig V

Right... if we have reputable dogma then my dogma is good and their dogma is bad.

I certainly agree that dogma is a relationship between beliefs, in that dogma is in some way protected against refutation, with the implication that other beliefs can go to the wall. But that status is attributed by the believer, so I don't see that I can delineate any content in advance. — Ludwig V

True.

Though I wouldn't propose content could be understood in advance -- only after reading or understanding or listening or something like that. The informal inferential relationships come to be known through reading scripts or through conversation, and can partially define dogma.

Though that's very cumbersome in comparison to:

Dogma is the bedrock of one's understanding; the bars on the cage of the mind that stop one falling out into the bliss of total ignorance. To imagine oneself without dogma is to imagine oneself as God. — unenlightened

Which is succinct and manages to lay out what's meant. I'm understanding better what is meant by dogma at this point.

This clicked:

It is a dogma that dogma is bad. — unenlightened

I've been expressing my own disdain for certain patterns of thought, a certainty which I've acquired through experience.

The only avowedly atheist governments I know of are the old Soviet regime and Modern China. One might also include Japan, but not 'avowedly'.

It's a very small sample, but not a great record. the assumption seems to be that dogma makes for intolerance, but perhaps it is more related to power, and dogma is simply 'certainty'.

I was thinking of dogma differently before, but I think I can get along with this way of talking.

Could some customized variation on that theme work for you? — Vera Mont

Heh, never. I read philosophy, which means I'm interminably unsatisfied ;). On a more personal note I think I grab-bag because I see resonances and also balances between philosophies -- so, for instance, Marxism-Anarchy holds both a resonance and also they balance one another. Something like that. Still working it out.

The doctrine shouldn't be ignored. I say "The Master", and thought I should include Epicureanism in my list of dogmas, because of Martha Nussbaum's Therapy of Desire -- whom I owe a deep debt to. The Garden, in terms of the community, was dogmatic in the same way that a hospital is dogmatic. The Doctor knows how to set a bone, and The Master knows how to cure your soul. Why would a doctor listen to the opinion of a non-practitioner? At least, this is how I've been able to make the most sense of the Epicurean philosophy so far.

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’. — I like sushi

True, but it's a therapy of desire rather than the elimination of, or freedom from, desire. At least in this rendition -- obviously these are ancient texts and we can read things in various ways. And because of my general existential outlook I'd say one has to actually want ataraxia in order for the therapy to begin to work. Nietzsche is a good contrast case, here. From Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

Lo! I show you the last man.
What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is
a star? so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth
the last man who maketh everything small. His species is in
eradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
We have discovered happiness; say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they
need warmth. One still loveth one s neighbour and rubbeth
against him; for one needeth warmth.

If one wants to be filled with passion and pursue great deeds, inventing new values in a continual process of puissance and overcoming then the words of Epicurus look like advice to get good sleep, rather than advice on how to be truly good.

So as with any ethic there is a normative dimension to its prescriptions, and we might choose to emphasize different norms. In a grand sense what unites both of these ethics is the focus on freedom, but their ideas of what constitutes freedom of the self differs -- one emphasizes joy and tranquility, and the other emphasizes nobility and striving (ever striving!).

Thoughts on the tetrapharmakos:

Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get,
What is terrible is easy to endure

The first and the second relate to what I mentioned in the dogma thread -- that superstition or cosmic significance ("supernatural" in that thread) are easy paths to anxiety. If you believe everything you do is judged by god in the here and now and in the afterlife (the first and the second doctrines, in my interpretation) then you will pursue groundless desires that can never be fulfilled -- the afterlife isn't the life you have to deal with, and the gods are already perfect so don't think anything about you.

I think I've explained the third doctrine in the previous posts on pleasure.

The fourth one has always been the hardest for myself, in trying out this way of thinking and living. But my second post about being "impervious" (resistant?) to pain due to having so much joy is something that's making a lot of sense to me as explanation.

Now, I'm interested that you think that the content might be relevant. — Ludwig V

Originally, I was closer to considering content because I was thinking about dogma as a relationship between beliefs, which would be partially content-dependent -- if flipping the truth-value of a belief flips the truth-value of other beliefs that could only be judged if we knew what the beliefs are and their (informal) inferential relationships to one another.

Also I have been thinking about Kant throughout the discussion and his notion of dogmatism relies upon what can or cannot be justified -- so insisting that space is infinite, for instance, is dogmatic due to the place that "space" fits within the scheme of reason.

:grin: But seriously... there is another variety of dogmatism, which is not quite the same. It starts from exactly the same response - "you must not understand me.", but does argue, properly at first. But when it becomes apparent that the proposition at stake will not be abandoned, (for example, as in ad hoc explanations), the debate is over - unless one can agree on a solution such "hinge proposition" or axiom, in which case a solution has been reached. Those solutions are a bit of a problem.

The key, though, is that proper engagement requires that one put one's own beliefs at stake. — Ludwig V

This is an interesting method for determining dogmatism!

It is interesting because the content of beliefs isn't referenced at all -- it's the character of the person at the moment rather than the beliefs, whether in content or even in relation to other beliefs. So any belief could serve as an example of dogmatism, depending upon the attitude of the person.

:rofl:

And yet we crave the reply of others -- almost like we only believe in ourselves if the other person says something.

idk guys -- I'm pretty sure those shrines have a hidden aesthetic meaning beyond both the beautiful and the sublime.

I like it. Solipsism is always good for a joke at least.

hah thanks. I was just playing along ;)

I know I'm not a fiction of your mind because I'm not that clever.

Did I post the Discussion "Solipsism" some odd 2 minutes ago?

Part of the reason Epicureanism isn't read as much is it's an interpretative nightmare due to how few sources there are. At least with Plato you have one author(EDIT: Well, there are spurious texts... it's still different? Maybe not expressing it right). With Epicurus you have quotes from other authors and later implementations of his ideas -- Cicero and Lucretius being the most cogent sources to compare the letters to (EDIT: The letters are written by Epicurus -- the primary source for the ideas, but they are just letters EDIT-EDIT: The letters are also only known because they were quoted by Diogenes in his Lives of the Philosophers. So... lots of interpretative layers).

I like the letters because that's where I began.

We're similar in spirit then. I hate cars -- nothing has caused me more anxiety in my life than all the things I have to do to do cars. But I am nowhere near as austere as The Master recommends -- if I am one then I'd say I'm a bad Epicurean :).

But I'm still Punk rock! Kind of. Not really. Sympathetic. (just to riff on 80's counter-culture)

Another point on Epicurean pleasure -- I think I disagree with the rendition of Epicurean happiness being defined as freedom from pain. The four part cure states that pain is easy to endure, not that we don't feel pain, and I tend to interpret "freedom from pain" to mean no pain rather than being able to deal with pain. I need to track down the paper, because I owe a debt to them and I don't remember who it was, but I like the rendition of Epicurus as a philosopher of joy -- rather than the harsh and austere invulnerability of the Stoics, one becomes invulnerable through developing a character that can weather pain with joy.

Focusing so much on invulnerability, which was a major philosophical theme at the time so it makes sense, is also another point of departure for me. This dovetails with the above. It's not to be impervious to fortune, but to be able to feel and go with the flows of fortune with tranquility.

I once knew someone who was passionate about the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, he took this to mean that when someone disagreed with his argument, he should repeat the argument. He was perfectly patient, never dogmatic, but never responded properly. He was dogmatic, but not offensive - just boring. — Ludwig V

That's hillariously in character -- Disagree with me? Why, you must not understand! :D

I'm not sure I'm a card-carrying member -- but I really do love it as a philosophy for reflecting on life's choices. I think it has overlooked wisdom.

Heh. This gets to the heart of where I have problems with Epicureanism as spoken of by The Master -- he recommends against politics for the same reason that it causes anxiety, which it surely does, and yet I still feel that pull.

But there's the curious case of Cassius.

Fair. I can see what you mean.

My dogma is the stuff you have to already assent to to even make sense what I'm saying. The disbeliefs you have to suspend. — unenlightened

That's a remarkably bare list :D

What's yours? — unenlightened

Oh I have all kinds of dogmas, in this way of talking. Strictly speaking atheism would count since it's not an aspect of knowledge, but mere belief. So I suppose you could say I'm strictly an agnostic, though I know what I believe.

But just as Hume pointed out that he strictly disbelieved in causality, sobut he continued to believe in it the moment he stopped doing philosophy.

Also I'd say that my Marxist and Anarchist tendencies count as dogma.

EDIT: I should also mention Feminism, and Epicureanism -- I mean I like philosophy and I think about philosophy and freely let my mind wander, so many many dogmas are a part of my life. (I'm no rationalist, though. I just like rationality) There's also this lovely book I have called Zen Anarchism that I feel gets close to my kind of dogma.

I know that this is the conviction that I hold — Vera Mont

Would you count the convictions that you know you hold as opinion or knowledge? I'd expect you to know what your convictions are. I know some of my convictions, but I would say they are an opinion which I know I hold rather than something I know is true.

I'm attempting another distinction, other than fact/value, in an effort to understand dogmatism as a universal human tendency. In this way I wouldn't exempt myself from having dogma. I have opinions, and conviction is what motivates one to make an opinion true. We are creatures which care, whether we like it or not. And if dogma is just opinion being treated like it's not opinion then we all do that when we care about it.

The negative connotation of dogma probably comes from thinking one is exempt, that one has knowledge of what is properly thought of as opinion. At least that's what the morning thought was.

Another attempt on dogmatics, from the morning walk: Dogma is opinion which is treated as if it's known.

I hope I haven't, though I'm willing to be judged.

I thought it was about the atheist dogma of interpreting scripture with a literal lense in the same way that one might interpret "the cat is on the mat".

Or, more open: about how interpreting scripture with respect to how we use language with respect to making true statements is not a good way to interpret scripture when talking to people who don't do it like that.

For Badiou, the vitality of reason is tied to an asymmetry it cannot go beyond. And it is kind of an accident. — Paine

I really do need to read Badiou then. Sometime.

Damnit.

I am trying to 'appreciate' where you are coming from in your support of non-literal theism. — universeness

For me it frequently comes down to the political pull. If we can act in concert together in pursuing knowledge or justice or pleasure, then I don't particularly care about the frame that a person lives by. That's for them to decide. If they are interested they can ask me what I think, and we all do from time to time, but for the most part I just don't feel it's much of my concern.

And Universalist Unitarians just aren't the literalists you're targeting, if you want a bigger organization that you can investigate on your own. IMX, they're good people. It's not my thing, but hey -- that's OK.

You want to find a place god can nestle with/exist with atheism yes? — universeness

No.

I am just asking for you to analyse the proposal I am suggesting considering god as omni this and omni that — universeness

I'm not a believer, so it's a little weird to analyse things as if I were. Further, anything said by people who are believers of this sort doesn't really rely upon the ontological argument or classical philosophical notions of God.

So I am lead to believe that you're not understanding, but you're acting like I'm not understanding.

Perhaps we've come to our little spot of dogma in the conversation.

Would it confuse you, if I said some of my best friends are theists. Including one who recently lost his father, and said to me that he gained more strength from my chats with him than he got from his church. — universeness

No.

Still one to go! Are you finding this one hard to deal with? — universeness

It seemed off topic to me on the basis of focusing on truth/existence rather than truth/meaning. Is God + Universe greater/better than God? If God is love, then the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Your efforts are mere exasperations, for those of us who are impatient for the human race to grow up, take hold, and build a better world, which utterly refuses to show deference to any BS threats or guidance from non-existent deities, described via the mouths and writings of nefarious, delusional or frightened humans. — universeness

I can certainly empathize with the desire to build a better world.

And I even believe that people ought not assign supernatural causes to what is natural -- it's one of the tenets of the tetrapharmakos. It causes anxiety to believe that your everday actions have cosmic import, and what's more, they don't have cosmic import. I don't believe in a theology of heaven or hell, nor do I think it likely to really help people live better lives.

But I see allies where you see enemies. I've known too many good people who are deeply motivated by religion, and who are also rational, to discount it -- from activists who are morally badass, to scientists who are rationally badass.

In what way is this different from the moral code of an atheist humanist? — universeness

Would it surprise you to hear that it's not? :D

I've been at pains to point out that we're not enemies, so it shouldn't be.

Give me one of YOUR examples of a theistic claim, that might be made by a non-literal theist?

I'm not comfortable here because... well... I'm not?

And I'm trying to point out how the appeal is not an epistemic game or debate.

So what is it concerned with that is representative of theism? — universeness

From my vantage it seems like a way of life, more than anything. People know where they are, where they're going, and their place in the world. It brings them meaning to their life. Those are the concerns.

God is love, still posits a prime mover that created this universe as an act of it's will. — universeness

Not really. God is love, and the church is its people -- it's a communitarian ethos. And it's not really conceptual in the sense of making a claim. The evidence would be in how the people treat others rather than in a game of epistemic justification or textual analysis.

I'd say that's a literal claim, and then we're in the literalism camp.

Then what is the difference between the bible and any other book of old stories? — DingoJones

Probably historical.

We have other ancient books that fulfill similar roles to the Bible. It's ancient wisdom literature, which tends to mish-mash concepts and even kinds of stories which we hold distinct today.

And I certainly wouldn't say the Bible gets to be the only book in that category. The reason we focus on it here has more to do with cultural history, I think.

why not rely on all the other much better quality books that have improved and expanded on everything the bible has to teach us? — DingoJones

I wouldn't speak against reading more. And, more importantly, the types of people who usually advocate for non-literal interpretations are usually open to reading more books. It's the theistic literalists that tend to focus on the Bible as a singular source of wisdom.

What conviction level do you personally assign to the proposal that the supernatural has one or more existents? — universeness

None. Though I'll note I don't think "supernatural" stands up to scrutiny, here it's a non-starter because this is looking for what is true and what exists, when the non-literal interpretation isn't concerned with either.

So why not recommend the final step and recommend that if you are a theist or you are religious or you are a theosophist then you are irrational, as you are conflating fables and myth with reality. The supernatural has no demonstrated existent and never has had. If you agree with that then WE agree. — universeness

I don't think that follows. Especially if one is using the text non-literally -- then that person is being pretty explicit about what is real and what is myth, rather than conflating the two.

It certainly does. If it does anything, it emphasizes difference in the interpretation of "interpretation". The difficulty is that sometimes interpretations sometimes exclude each other - or seem to. They certainly reflect different presuppositions and different interests.

I suspect two different uses of interpretation here. One is a use in which interpretations do not exclude each other; each is valid or invalid on its own terms. The other is a use in which a rule is applied to a case. (Yes, I'm channelling Wittgenstein). Each application of a rule is an interpretation, so it may be applied in different ways. Sometimes, we can agree that the rule might be applied in different ways; then we seek a "ruling". But if the rule is to have any meaning, we need to be able to say that one way of applying the rule is right and another is wrong.

It seems to me that the conviction that one has the right, correct, true answer is the source of dogma, and consequently the most pernicious view. I don't think that atheism or religion are necessarily pernicious, it is the conviction that does the harm.

Yet, if there is any truth to be found in this chaotic world, and even if there is none, one has to take a stand somewhere. How can one do that and avoid becoming dogmatic? — Ludwig V

This is great stuff.

I think keeping your question open is a good aporetic point. I am tempted to answer, but as I do I am unsatisfied with my answers. At least the ones I've attempted so far.

A reflection though: I wouldn't want to lump all conviction together as dogmatic because then we'd become Buridan's Ass. And I'm not sure what conviction is other than believing that one has the right, correct, or true answer. But there is this other side of conviction which seems equally undesirable, where we blind ourselves to the views of others, or cease to listen to people, or stop questioning.

I agree that neither a/theism is pernicious, all unto itself, though. Generally I prefer to promote tolerance of others on the basis that we can't know these things. Maybe that's the better route towards understanding dogmatism critically.

If none of these biblical stories are to be taken literally, then perhaps the story of god should not be taken literally, — universeness

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with me here :D

Yes, that's what a non-literal interpretation of the Bible would indicate, wouldn't it?

Hence why talking about God as a literal being who exists like a sky wizard who punishes children for making fun of their elders by feeding them to bears is to miss the point. (honestly it sounds like a story one might tell a child to make them fear, and thereby act like they respect, their elders -- these are ancient stories from a time long past, after all. We have no idea what the original context really was)

The confusion is understandable because there's a lot of theists who basically go along with the literalist interpretation. But, in this case, since literalism is being put out to pasture, these are non-starters.

Interesting. Talking snakes is one thing. But dismissing the existence of Jesus would undermine Christianity, surely? How many practicing Christians would there be who think Jesus never lived? If everything comes down to compelling stories rather than truth then Hamlet or David Copperfield may was well be worshiped (actually I think Harold Bloom did just that). — Tom Storm

I'm not sure of the Christian demographic, but the Universalist Unitarian church has been on my mind as an example of a church organization that doesn't put emphasis on the literal truth of scripture -- it even allows multiple faiths within its structure. I've gone to some non-denominational churches which were similar in their emphasis that the story of Jesus is a transformative story which centers love -- and God is love.

Hamlet or David Copperfield sort of do fit within a holy pantheon of literature :D -- we sort of worship them, but in this different way that's more revering than as a supplicant to them. (though I have to mention -- future isolated society organized around Hamlet religiously sounds like a Trek episode)

In the United States I think this is more a minority position, but I'd prefer it weren't. I'd prefer more people treated the texts like historical objects with stories from a time far away from now and relate to them at a emotive, rather than literal, level. Non-literalists always seem more peaceful to me.

The film seems to be a piece of post-modern pop, a hybrid of mythology and film history styles, so anything you want you will probably find in it - from pirate movie tropes to Cold War metaphors. :smile: — Tom Storm

it'd seemed back in '77 that Star Wars was only a corny mashup of 1930s' era Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Wizard of Oz & bad samurai flicks ... — 180 Proof

The interesting part is the hold it has had on culture. — Tom Storm

I'll offer the Marxist theory of Star Wars' hold (40 second mark didn't hold with the embedded link)



But I believe there's also aesthetic reasons, more to do with film and pop-culture, that made Star Wars blow up the way it did. It's definitely a mish-mash of a lot of ideas, and it's neither the plot nor the characters that hold it together (I think the actors other than Mark manages well enough with actor charisma, though). I'm told that the editing on the film is supposed to have made a huge difference in comparison to the script, but I haven't done the dig on that.

Otherwise: Lucas was a master of merchandising on the moment! :D

I'm familiar with Richard Carrier.

The truth of the stories isn't at issue, though. Carrier reads the Bible with a historian's interpretation. This is one (very interesting!) way of reading the Bible.

But it's not the only way.

I've mentioned throughout that it's partly the fault of literalist theists who insist on the truth of the scriptures that this is a common line of attack. Many an atheist, and I include myself in this group, has been dissuaded byof theological convictions on the basis of literal interpretations of scripture being a central part of a particular community.

It's just that the group of my birth isn't representative of the whole tradition of scriptural interpretation. People read these things for a reason, even after figuring out that it's a story. And if we're convicted physicalists, then it's fascinating that a literal work of fiction holds more meaning for so many people than the entire library of Nature (the literal publication, not the metaphorical book of nature).

So to insist on the truth of talking snakes or the existence of Jesus is to miss out on what makes these stories compelling.

I think I'm still alright with using the term, while accepting that it's necessarily vague -- there's an upshot there in that it's worth setting out what one means in talking about dogma.

And so far I think I've been clear enough in agreeing that a literal interpretation of the scriptures when a non-literal interpretation is offered is dogmatic. Pointing out that snakes cannot talk in response to a non-literal interpretation of the fall of man really seems to miss the point. (unless you're dealing with someone who insists on its truth -- which is common! -- but in this OP that's clearly not an issue)