Okay, first let's stop referring to Christianity when talking about Stoicism itself. Stoicism had gone out of practice way before Christianity was born.
Are you just confused as to the historical events?

Oh I know what it is. I'm just not sure why it's attractive. — Sumyung Gui

I left out "raised Christian" in your quote as Stoicism was prior to Christianity, as I have already said.

So, knowing it, you really don't know what's attractive about Stoicism?

According to Jordan (1987), the Stoics thought that “God, who is Nature, knows the whole system of interrelated causes and ‘what every future event will be,’ including every event in the life of each person. — Gnomon

"God" is a creative addition to the writings about Stoicism, as the movement came about before Christianity, whose conception of God is quite the religious conception we know now. "Nature" or mythological is more in line with it.

What is attractive about Stoicism tho? This is the part that baffles me. — Sumyung Gui

I studied it so I guess I can respond to this. It was practiced in daily life -- you're supposed to not be perturbed about things you cannot change and things that already happened. Do not cry over spilled milk. This is the mind over matter mantra.

You should look up the practitioners of this philosophy -- Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus. Yes, obviously, we can say -- "easy for them to say don't sweat the small stuff. After all, they're emperors and wealthy land owners. They had achieved great things." But know that Epictetus lived a penniless life all throughout his life. He lived just enough to be able to do philosophical discourse. ( He didn't write anything)

Stoicism was the precursor for the Christian religion.

You may not like Christianity, but Jesus Christ lived the stoic life as well and was truly a good, peaceful person, according to history. And yes, I saw the sample of the page where a snippet of his description was written.

Yes, I think in philosophy it could be contrasted with something like sophisticated. — Jamal

No, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid thinking, that primitive is contrasted with sophisticated. I don't think that's what it means in philosophy. But I won't dwell on this anymore as I don't have any other objections.

Thanks.

However, in my opinion it’s pretty clear that Pinker means it in the sense I identified: characteristic of an earlier stage of development, when Enlightenment had not been brought to fruition in some way, or just when things were worse. — Jamal

:up:

But what he really means is that even if we do still suffer from some of those evils, they are relics. We are on the forward march, and it's only a matter of time before we consign them to the dustbin of history. — Jamal

I didn't get this from the passage. Of course I haven't read Pinker, but the passage, to me, did not mean they are relics. He said they are a part of natural existence and countries can slide back to them - at the expense of the wisdom of the Enlightenment. So, in essence he doesn't expect those evils to go away, but only to become latent. He used the word "pacified" at one point in his works (?)

I think we commonly mistake the definition of "primitive" as the past. I actually was first confused as to the use of the word when I came across the word in philosophy. I think in philosophy, primitive means basic and simple, as in the ordinary means of dealing with things. (I don't know, I'm trying to get to the definition that sounds satisfactory).

Anyway, very good OP!

I ramble on a bit more after that but I’ve decided to leave it out for now. — invicta

Have you heard of ...editing?

The Concept of Nature, is better, or to be more accurate, I preferred. — Manuel

Yes, that is one work I couldn't disagree with.

Welcome. :cool:

I might have preferred the adult.... — Vera Mont

Me too.

I don't have any adult thing to add to your already exhaustive list. :up:

There is a maximum lifespan for the species and a statistical lifespan over which 50% don't make it? — TiredThinker

Yeah, I don't understand the answers on this thread. Those numbers are a result of health studies as it relate to population's well-being, which includes physical and mental health, security/safety, accident, etc. They're backed by science. It doesn't matter what one thinks what age they would like to die -- we're not talking poetic, spiritual, metaphysical, or choice here.

Just the improvements in water and food safety alone had contributed to an increase in life expectancy. If your country's life expectancy is still in the 45-year old, then you're behind 2,000 years in well-being. Short and long life has real, measurable meaning.

The average lifespan is late 70s early 80s, and the maximum lifespan based on hayflick limit is about 120 although people have lived longer. — TiredThinker

The lifespan is about 120, but the average life expectancy is somewhere around 70s and 80s. Lifespan and life expectancy are not the same.

Anytime someone dies 10 years below life expectancy, that's too young to die.

Somehow, I needed to think first whether I should answer as a 5 year old or as an adult. Because look below -- it seems like children should be included in the OP:

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it? — Vera Mont

When it's my mother talking.

Has the source of the statement previously been reliable? — BC

Yeah, she was reliable in the past. If she said I'd get punished for wrongdoing, I got the punishment when I'd done something wrong.

Is the content of the statement consistent with the context? — BC

I don't know if a 5 year old can understand "context".

Is the content of the statement supported by external information with which I am familiar? — BC

I knew my father would support my mother's statement. So, my father was the external information.

Does the statement violate "common sense"? — BC

Sometimes my mother didn't have common sense -- so in those instances, nothing was violated. Otherwise, she had common sense.

Edit: I forgot to answer the last question. Did her statement violate my common sense? No. I didn't have the luxury of thinking for the sake of common sense -- it was my mother talking.

:up:

First of all, Arthur C Clarke is a science-fiction writer.

The point is that we do [not] yet fully understand nature. We do not yet know the limits of what can be done in the natural world. So, it’s presumptuous and foolish to decide something is beyond nature’s laws. True, we believe today that some things cannot be done, for instance, faster than light travel. But the list is long of things science once believed impossible which are now commonplace. — Art48

I think you're confusing discovery with construction. Humans discovered that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in the entire universe -- not just our solar system or our galaxy, but the entire universe. We also discovered that humans can't fly like birds, and to this day, no one person had flown in the sky like a bird. There are mechanics in place that sets limits on the workings of the universe. No one can walk on water without camera editing, lol.

Although I get your point -- let's wait until we have the means and knowledge to find things that would undermine what we previously believe. But again, this is discovery, not construction. Why we haven't discovered that one piece of the puzzle that could show us that there is something faster than the speed of light is because it's not there. Maybe aliens are faster than the speed of light. But aliens, if there are aliens, are part of our universe too.

If it is through experience that men acquire science and art, then can there be knowledge of what does not come from experience? — Fooloso4

He said,

Nevertheless we consider that knowledge and proficiency belong to art rather than to experience

He did not consider knowledge to belong to experience (the particulars). Knowledge, as he attributed to art has the form of a universal, conceptual, or non-concrete occurrence. Similar to Platonic forms.

Edit: lol. I misread the quote. My mistake.

Note: I'm not arguing these ideas are true. But I think they are interesting and may be true, which is why I posted. — Art48

I get your point. However, the examples of Donald Hoffman and the soccer metaphor are, to me, just variations of metaphysical views about perception. So, if I don't find these interesting, it's because I do understand the point, but not the motivation behind. Spacetime, for instance, has already been theorized as just mental construct that's limited in shape and form due to our finite existence. Nothing to gain by going against it.

But let's say the above examples are what actually is, there's nothing to change in our knowledge of the world since our knowing of it (spacetime is just a facade of the real thing) does not change our perception -- we will continue to see the world through our constitution. Our experience will remain the same.

I realize that what I've just written seems like nothing but two paragraphs of blah blah blah.

Yet another thread on perception and reality. I think we have 20 threads now concurrently.

The physical world is a representation, an appearance, on the screen of perception, on the dashboard of dials. — Art48

Okay. Then what? What is the conclusion to this observation? Surely you don't mean this to be the conclusion.

Why the detour into the opinions of the wise man? — Fooloso4

You got it incorrectly. It's not "the opinion of the wise man". It is "the opinions which we hold about the wise man". Big difference. That's why you got lost there for a second.

Is Aristotle wise? Can he teach us these principles and causes? He will identify four causes, but this is not sufficient for making us wise regarding knowledge. — Fooloso4

Yes, Aristotle was wise, and yes he could teach us the principles and causes. The four causes are supposed to be the complete explanation of everything there is. He was a teacher after all -- educated in almost everything in the academy.

But if such a law doesn't exist (I'm not sure what countries have such a law or don't, perhaps all of them do), but suppose they don't and the onus is on you to decide individually. What do you think is the correct course of action? — Benj96

It's called professional judgment. (Given the law in place, or the lack thereof), you employ your professional judgment to the best of your knowledge to decide whether or not you sell him alcohol. And the obvious answer is, of course, you don't.

(I'm also intrigued that Kant appears to concede dualism in that passage.) — @Wayfarer

I don't read that as Kant conceding dualism, — Janus

No, Kant is part of the egocentric movement. So, yes, Wayfarer's comment makes sense.

I don't have a problem with causation as used in perception and other physical phenomena we observe. But one of the most famous rational/empirical skepticism came from Hume, or unfortunately, it came from Hume. And then it just cemented the idea that there's a problem with causation.

Logical empiricism tries to argue against the necessary connection we humans make, as ordinary observers, about things in the world. I say this is the wrong way to argue against the validity of causation. Ordinary observation never claims a necessary connection, only ordinary hypothesis. It's not like the sunrise or sunset is a type of probabilistic event. lol. Ten things must come unhinge first before the sunrise and the sunset is no longer the case.

Whitehead was my personal preference, because I happen to think process philosophy is a powerful concept. — Pantagruel

:up: I can't argue against that.

I am simply pointing to the many problems with causation. — Banno

Then what are they?

Interesting to note nobody chose "metaphysics", which can't be right on a forum of this size. I think the example of Whitehead might be too polarizing, — Manuel

Yes I noticed. I chose it -- philosophy must have it, along with epistemology. Whitehead can be an example, but should not be the only example.

Must a philosophical mind remove the ego? — TiredThinker

Yes. Except for Descartes who must prove the duality of existence. After that, yes.

Be logical? — TiredThinker

Absolutely.

Prone to splitting hairs? — TiredThinker

No. Philosophers are known to be contentious if there's a thick argument to be made against an idea.

What are the prerequisites? — TiredThinker

One must first be introduced to their first philosopher's works.

Sorry to go off-topic on this thread.

This happened to me last week when a casual remark made by a high school classmate seventy years ago popped into my thoughts. It's partly the evoked emotion caused by the incident that fixes it firmly in the subconscious, available for re-annoying. :sad: — jgill

It's my job to deal with people with a wide range of net worth so basically I'm trained to deal with why people say what they say. (Not to say I've mastered it, so once in a while I fall prey to it, too -- but a "professional" one like me :cool: rebounds back)

Time should have blurred that emotion in you caused by the classmate's remark. But know this, I bet that memory came back to you at the moment when you're not feeling well or your mind was pre-occupied with some disturbance not related to the past memory. You were just vulnerable at that moment, like an infection that you acquired.

Hahaha! :up:

I am of the view that the word 'ontology' refers to exploration the nature of being, as distinct from the study of phenomena or the analysis of what kinds of things there are, which I said is the domain of science proper. — Wayfarer

This is good. What was the problem?

Too much emphasis on causation for my taste. A better epitome of a metaphysical principle would be the conservation laws. The causal relations between billiard balls, or instance, are an expression of conservation of momentum. — Banno

Not sure how that limits causation.
There are alternatives to causation, the conservation laws being a case in point. — Banno

This argument is getting more convoluted. You seem to think that causation involves only conservation of energy. If this is not the case, then I stand corrected. But my impression of your post previously is that you think only the conservation law is the proper example of causation.

All conservation is conservation of mass? That doesn't seem right. — Banno

Yes it is right, or conservation of energy, if you will. But optics is not one of those because it involves light -- and light is massless. So optics does not belong in conservation of energy, yet it is used as example of causation. In other words, it's not just conservation law, but other processes, too, support causation. That's it. That is our point of contention.

I agree that there are other examples of causation. Are you attempting to show that some of them cannot be reduced to conservation principles? — Banno

Yes.

So I'm still at a loss as to what this post of yours was about:

Surely you must hate optics? — L'éléphant — Banno

I said that because in your previous post, you clearly limited causation with the conservation principles. And then followed it with causation is not uncontroversial. What does being controversial mean?

I don't understand, again. The conservation of energy requires that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant -whether it be in the form of mass or otherwise. — Banno

There is no otherwise in conservation principle -- it involves mass. If not, there's no conservation of something.

Conservation of energy is not a fungible principle.

Okay, I thought you were joking. Unfortunately, this is not what causation is in metaphysics. Maybe Ethics? The harm principle? Offense?

Are you saying that energy is not conserved when light induces an impulse in one's optic nerve? — Banno

There is energy, but light is massless. Conservation of energy involves mass. Look up phototransduction. I believe this is one reason why causation is not limited to the billiard balls example.

What if I write something that makes you so annoyed your hands begin to shake. What kind of causation would that be? — Wayfarer

I give up. What is it?

Sorry I can't educate you. That post is for Banno.

Grumph. Too much emphasis on causation for my taste. A better epitome of a metaphysical principle would be the conservation laws. The causal relations between billiard balls, or instance, are an expression of conservation of momentum. — Banno

I said previously you must hate optics, to which you responded "How so?".

So, here it is. Billiard balls is a favorite example of causation -- after all, it is easy to see the force of the balls bumping against each other and putting them in motion. But this is not the only example of causation. The optic nerves, responsible for transmitting electrical pulses to create an image is another. You know... light passes through the pupil, etc. In other words, there is energy there, too.

That's what I'm talking about! :100:

That, and his perfect, unscathed dental work. — Vera Mont

I don't know why I keep forgetting to include dental work in my horror analysis. :up:

A better epitome of a metaphysical principle would be the conservation laws. The causal relations between billiard balls, or instance, are an expression of conservation of momentum. — Banno

Surely you must hate optics?

Previously I put this down to contrariness. I now wonder if it might be vacillation or trepidation. Or simple failure to commit? — Banno

I might put it as not understanding what idealism and non-skeptical realism are. The PhilPapers voters overwhelmingly voted for non-skeptical realism in both epistemology and metaphysics (drop-down menu). I entered PhD, then all respondents. Similar results, over 80% leaning towards non-skeptical realism.

So, my guess with the results in this forum is that not enough voters who understand the philosophies in the poll, and not enough voters.

It's possible, I suppose, that you have worse than average luck. But the difference between hope and despair is not in the circumstances; it's in the attitude. — Vera Mont

That's why I watch horror movies. I get to relive the victory achieved when the kick-ass hero beats the evil after having been torn in different parts of his body, covered in blood, haven't eaten for days, one eye shut blind, the other half-operating. After all that -- he gets to take one shot that ends it all and kills the enemy. And it's not like he wins material riches with this victory. No. He gets to continue living, back to his normal average life. That's his prize.

But that's not the focus of my OP. It is the extra burden of this existential situation.

Every time I bring this idea up, it is like there is a bug in this forum where no member quite understands what I am getting at but wants to debate animal cognition, losing site of the focus, and throwing up red herrings or getting lost in non-essential tangents rather than productive dialogue on our existential situation. — schopenhauer1

I honestly still do not get your point, except this is leading to the idea that not being born is better. Am I right?
I can't have a rational discussion about the choice of existing and not existing because they're not in the same realm. Debating the comparison is not productive or it is useless.