Thanks for the reference.

As for Heidi, I have only this to say, or rather say again:

Notorious Nazi Heidegger
(Whom Hitler had made all-a-quiver)
Tried hard to be hailed
Nazi-Plato, but failed
Then denied he had tried with great vigor.

Ah. So Christianity didn't become a religion until it was looked upon favorably and sanctioned by the Imperial government. It's certainly an interesting though peculiar perspective.

Not wrong or confused. You have to look at the time of Constantine, who made the formal acknowledgement of the Christian religion around 313 CE. The school of Stoic closed around the first century, I think. (I don't have my books anymore, sorry).

Before Constantine, it was a sect, not a religion. They were called the Nazarenes. — L'éléphant

You astonish me!

It's very odd, then, that centuries before Constantine, Pliny the Younger referred to "Christianis" and "Christiani" and "Christo" in his letter to Trajan, inquiring how they should be treated, and Tacitus wrote of "Chrestianos" who were followers of "Christus" who had been executed by Pontius Pilatus. I wonder who they were referring to, really.

I admire your blithe exclusiveness. Not only do you relegate the authors of the Gospels and Acts to non-Christian status, but also the revered Church Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr (called "martyr" because he was martyred, but apparently not for being a Christian), Clement of Alexandria and Ignatius of Antioch (the third bishop of that city, though it seems not a Christian one), all of whom lived and died long before Constantine.

Do you interpret this as an indication of the difference between politics and philosophy? In what way? — Fooloso4

In the way Cicero did. Cicero criticized Cato in his letters for being on occasion harmful to the Roman Republic because of his insistence on acting as a philosopher while acting as a Senator, and on his insistence that all other Senators do the same. If Cato had his way, the Republic would not function.
Plato himself failed miserably in his effort to have Syracuse's tyrant govern in accordance with philosophy.

That is to say, simply, that there's a difference between the politics as practical governance and the practice of philosophy.

No doubt philosophy may have political implications. But this doesn't make them the same in any significant sense.

↪Sumyung Gui 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? — L'éléphant

Really? Jesus supposedly lived in the early first century C.E. (A.D. if your prefer). Paul was born around 5 C.E. and lived until around 65 C.E. Paul, it seems, had something to do with Christianity. The Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus died in 95 C.E., 30 years after Paul. The Stoic philosopher Seneca was a contemporary of Paul's and was an advisor to Nero, who it was claimed burned Christians after Rome's great fire during his reign. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus died around 135 C.E. Marcus Aurelius was Emperor from 161 C.E. to 180 C.E They were Stoics, you see. Marcus Aurelius referred to Christians in his Meditations. So did the Emperor Trajan in his correspondence with Pliny (Trajan was Emperor from 98 C.E. to 117 C.E. ).

It seems you're wrong. Or just confused as to historical events.

This is, of course, from Plato's Republic. See the quote from Cicero above. — Fooloso4

Cicero knew quite well the difference between politics and philosophy. We see this in his criticism of Cato the Younger (though he admired Cato in some respects). Cato, said Cicero, "gives his opinion as if he were in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' cesspool."

No, there's not. And be honest - you meant to say that religious beliefs are preposterous. Now you're trying to get off the hook on a technicality. — T Clark

Can't let it go, eh?

Basta. As @Vera Mont would say, what we understand to be the case depends on meaning, context and significance. So yes, you're right. Understand that as you will, and I'll understand it based on its meaning, context and significance to me.

It all depends, doesn't it? No use debating about it.

There's a difference between saying certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others and saying all religious beliefs are preposterous or saying all religion is preposterous. I personally think the belief in an immanent God, who doesn't demand or respond to prayers or worship, doesn't exist "outside the universe", is not jealous, doesn't interfere in human affairs, doesn't assist certain football teams but not others, doesn't miraculously save some people from disasters but lets many others die in them, (one could go on) is far less preposterous than other such beliefs. I would even call it a reasonable belief but for the fact I know its attraction (to me at least) is more the result of a feeling which, though based on my experience, can't be established by reason; can't be proven.

I'm not sure what else to say.

Such a touchy fellow. Your self-righteousness compels me to review what seems hardly worth reviewing but is apparently (and sadly, I think) of great concern to you.

Here's what I said:

I think that certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others. But I doubt believers care whether they're more or less preposterous to others, and will be unimpressed by any argument that they're beliefs are unreasonable regardless of whether they're told there is no God or that particular beliefs about God are unsupportable. — Ciceronianus

Here's what you said:

I've never thought any religious belief sounded any more "preposterous" than quantum mechanics. If you're in the mood for some pointless argument, there are plenty of reasonable arguments against religion, but preposterousness is not one of them. — T Clark

Then I said:

Quantum mechanics certainly seems strange, but I think the analogy with religion doesn't work. I suspect that those studying QM approach things a bit differently than religious believers. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if it's taken up by religious apologists and claimed by them to support their religious beliefs. It seems that's been the case for a while now. — Ciceronianus

Then you said:

Of course they do, but that wasn't the question on the table. You weren't talking about the methods, mindset, approach, or beliefs of scientists studying quantum mechanics. You were talking about QM's preposterousness. Now you're trying to change the subject. — T Clark

Then I said:

In fact, I said nothing at all about QM being preposterous. I said it "certainly seems strange." You said QM is preposterous, and apparently feel it's as preposterous as religion, if not more preposterous than it is. If that's what you believe, so be it. I merely think QM and religion are not analogous. — Ciceronianus

Then you said:

No, that was me. I claimed that believing in God is no more preposterous than quantum mechanics. You have yet to address that argument. — T Clark

Again (and again, and again, and again) that is not the question on the table. You made a glib statement about religion being preposterous. I made a comment in response. You have yet to respond to my comment. — T Clark

Now, pause and perpend. I never said that religion is preposterous. I never said QM is preposterous.

I really don't care if you think they're both preposterous. Never having said either was preposterous, I don't feel inclined to debate whether or not or to what extent either may be preposterous. You may pontificate on those issues to your heart's content, though. But I was responding to the claim that atheism supports religion and the suggestion in the OP that the religious should be confronted with what seems problematic with their beliefs rather than merely the denial of God's existence. In doing so, I pointed out that I didn't think it mattered how preposterous religious beliefs may be to the believer.

Then you began harping on the preposterousness of both religion and QM. I said I didn't think they were analogous and you became apoplectic, demanding a response to your claim that they were both preposterous.

"Bad philosophy" forsooth. Read what you comment on, from time to time.

No, it doesn't depend on the myth. It depends on one's understanding of the myth, its meaning, context and significance.
Just as belief of* any particular scientific theory depends on one's understanding of it.
* of, not in — Vera Mont

Yes, yes. Giant muddy sea turtle, big bang...it all depends.

While the scientists operate by different rules and glean their information from different sources than the mystics, a creation myth doesn't sound more impossible than a big bang. — Vera Mont

Ok. I would think it might depend on the myth, though. But for all I know the world may have come about from the piling of mud on the back of a large sea turtle.

Of course they do, but that wasn't the question on the table. You weren't talking about the methods, mindset, approach, or beliefs of scientists studying quantum mechanics. You were talking about QM's preposterousness. Now you're trying to change the subject. — T Clark

In fact, I said nothing at all about QM being preposterous. I said it "certainly seems strange." You said QM is preposterous, and apparently feel it's as preposterous as religion, if not more preposterous than it is. If that's what you believe, so be it. I merely think QM and religion are not analogous.

Maybe Gnostic Christianity, but that sounds more like Neoplatonism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, Christianity through the years has borrowed heavily from neoplatonism. It's one of the ingredients in the vast hodgepodge, or stew, that is Christianity.

I've never thought any religious belief sounded any more "preposterous" than quantum mechanics. If you're in the mood for some pointless argument, there are plenty of reasonable arguments against religion, but preposterousness is not one of them. — T Clark

Quantum mechanics certainly seems strange, but I think the analogy with religion doesn't work. I suspect that those studying QM approach things a bit differently than religious believers. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if it's taken up by religious apologists and claimed by them to support their religious beliefs. It seems that's been the case for a while now.

Agree? — Art48

I think that certain religious beliefs are less preposterous than others. But I doubt believers care whether they're more or less preposterous to others, and will be unimpressed by any argument that they're beliefs are unreasonable regardless of whether they're told there is no God or that particular beliefs about God are unsupportable.

Does it not sometimes make one feel powerless or at worst nihilistic in the face of it? — invicta

Only if you're inclined to disturb yourself with what's entirely beyond your control. I'm too much of a Stoic to do that. What could be more pointless?

Where would you consider more appropriate? — Art48

I'd prefer that there will come a day when there will be no further reference to an "external world" anywhere, anytime, if what is meant is some place apart from us that we can never "really" know. But we're so infected by the belief that there is a world "out there" that it's unlikely that blessed day will arrive.

There's something comical about presuming to give lessons of this kind on YouTube. I wonder what people really are seeing when they watch this video. Just a representation of a representation made by a representation of something the representation believed was represented, I suppose.

We're in the world. We're part of reality. It isn't something separate from us, that we observe. But this is old stuff.

What, then, is the point of asking "What's the point?"?

Well, they are good Christian soldiers in the war against humanism, which like Communism seeks world domination... — Tom Storm

Yes, but I wonder if they feel they must demonstrate, somehow, that conversion to Catholicism has made them better advocates (or apologists) for God than Anglicans can be. Justifying their Papism, in other words. I'm a cynical fellow.

These Brits who decide to join the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church just can't stop talking/writing, about God (and themselves) it seems. Newman, Chesterton, Lewis, Copleston, just go on and on. It's as if they have something to prove.

The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

Yes. I like Hadot. He wrote an interesting book on Marcus Aurelius' Meditations arguing they were a kind of Stoic practice.

'The unexamined life is not worth living' is one of the Socratic maxims. Philosophy itself means, not just the 'love of wisdom' but 'love-wisdom' and it's cultivation. I've been following a series of posts on Medium by a scholar of stoic philosophy, and that is its entire focus. — Wayfarer

The unexamined life, yes. Not the unexamined "me." Our lives are lived in an environment, and include much more than us; we don't live, really, when we concentrate on ourselves.

I don't know the scholar you refer to, but ancient Stoicism and other ancient schools taught how to live, as I said before, and perhaps that's what the scholar is referring to.

I had in mind the fellow who wrote light-hearted, jaunty things like this:

Listen to the cry of a woman in labor at the hour of giving birth - look at the dying man's struggle at his last extremity, and then tell me whether something that begins and ends thus could be intended for enjoyment.

There are, as is known, insects that die in the moment of fertilization. So it is with all joy: life's highest, most splendid moment of enjoyment is accompanied by death.

Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic if it is pulled out I shall die.

Trouble is the common denominator of living. It is the great equalizer.

Happiness is the greatest hiding place for despair.

But I understand these are merely short quotations, though there seem to be quite a few along these lines. They strike me as a bit gloomy. But I don't mean to characterize all of his work.

Very well stated, but the point could equally be made that philosophy used to contemplate these larger questions, but that its scope has been deliberately narrowed by those modern exponents of it that you mention, perhaps to avoid the very kind of self-examination that the OP is trying to elicit. Enables those exponents to conceal themselves behind the jargon of professionalism and to direct awkward and embarrasing questions into thickets of technicalities.

Consider for example Kierkegaard, a philosopher with whom I am only sliightly familiar. But his entire ouvre is very much first-person oriented and addressed to questions of just those kinds. — Wayfarer

But to what extent is philosophy useful to this self-examination as you call it? What can such necessarily subjective reflection by philosophers achieve that isn't achieved far better by others who are not expected to be constrained by reason, or the need to explain rather than evoke?

I know little about that VERY Melancholy Dane, Kierkegaard, but he seems more a theologian or commentator/apologist for religion than a philosopher.

Name one cheerful philosopher.
— Ciceronianus
Democritus (et al). — 180 Proof

I stand corrected.

Thus, I've always had a strong affinity for Epicureanism — 180 Proof

Stoicism for me, but like Seneca, I have great regard for Epicurus

he image of cheerful philosophers torturing lawyers is just too delicious; we'll just slowly pour the whiskey into the bottle until the flyster either flies or floats out. — unenlightened

Name one cheerful philosopher. But I've suffered the tortures of the damned, sir.

I see you're a big fan of Euripides. — frank

Well, as portrayed by Aristophanes.

At some stage in this confessional thread one might start to see a pattern; so far the obvious pattern is that philosophers like to display their examined lives, and think it serious and worthwhile to do so. And who am I to disagree? — unenlightened

If you won't, I will. Who am I to do so? A lawyer, who can't stop being, or playing, an advocate. Wait. I'm a tortured lawyer. Some day I'll reveal the reasons why I was fated to become one.

It's an old story, isn't it? Let's talk about ME. It's true philosophers have been known to indulge in this--most notoriously Augustine and Rousseau. But it's something we all do, now and then.

The formal training in philosophy I experienced so long ago might be characterized as narrow, but I'm thankful that it avoided speculation along these lines, just as it avoided seeking to discover the meaning of life. In many ways, it cheerfully undermined attempts to address the supposed great questions of humankind, when it bothered addressing them at all. You know the names; Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, etc.; those whose business it was to show the fly the way out of the bottle.

I became convinced, and still am convinced, that what philosophers had to say in this respect was said long, long ago as part of the effort to determine how best to live. That took place before Christianity, before Romanticism, before people came to understand that "God is dead" and despaired because of it, before nihilism, existentialism; in short, before we became devotees of angst.

I don't mean to say that great questions are unimportant or should not be addressed, but I don't think philosophy is useful in addressing them, unless we mean by philosophy art, poetry, meditation and pursuits which evoke rather than seek to explain. Those are pursuits which are better left to those who aren't philosophers.

If we changed the word "law" in #3 to "rules" or "theory" we'd have no disagreement. The quibble is over the term "law."

Is this a correct summation? — Hanover

I think so. It seems I'm a legal positivist. I think the use of the words "law" and "rights" result in confusion, and the law is distinct from morality. I favor legal rights as I think they serve to put limits on governmental power. But rights which aren't legal rights are what people think should be legal rights if they're not already.

I favor virtue ethics and other ethics which aren't based on concepts of individual rights. People claim so many rights.

So a woman is raped in a nation where the positive law permits it because she is the possession of the man who has committed this act.

Was this "act" a violation? If it was a violation, what was it a violation of? — Hanover

Are you asking me?

The law in effect wasn't violated, clearly. But no non-legal right must be violated in order for an act to be immoral. The rape was reprehensible regardless of any right or law.

Such is the case with legal rights as well. Someone believes they should have a legal right to do X. Rather than appeal to nature, though, they appeal to those in power. The difference is that legislation is designed to let one man or group of men arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may or may not do, not unlike slavery, which is contrary to natural law. — NOS4A2

Legal rights already exist. Why or when they came into existence is another matter. The law is the law, regardless of its merits, regardless of why it became law. One might claim a legal right is a natural right, but whether it is or not is immaterial to its status, its function, its enforceability.

Natural Law, I think, doesn't necessarily entail Natural Rights,although it isn't law, properly speaking. The Roman jurist Ulpian said of slavery that it is "contrary to nature." The ancient Stoics taught we should live "according to nature." Whether Roman jurisprudence accepted what we call "rights" is debatable. Roman citizens had a "right" to appeal to the Emperor (that's what Paul did, not that it did him much good, though it kept him alive for a time). A trial was required in certain cases, so perhaps that may be said to be similar to the "right to trial," but I think it was more a prohibition of certain conduct than a positive right, e.g. a citizen cannot be punished with death until a trial is held doesn't mean that he has a "right" to trial.

The ancient Stoics, as far as I know, never spoke of the "rights" of individuals. Instead, their ethics focused on proper conduct, virtuous conduct "according to nature." So, e.g., we shouldn't steal not because there is a right to private property, but because coveting and taking someone's property isn't virtuous--such things aren't important to the Stoic Sage.

If they were recognized and enforceable within a particular legal system then they would be limited by jurisdiction. Natural rights are supposed to be universal, but there is no universal legal system. In any case, natural rights are supposed to precede and transcend legal systems. — NOS4A2

I know that's the claim made about them. But a "right" that isn't a legal right is merely what someone believes should be the case. Someone who believes we have the natural right to do X believes that we all should be able to do X, for whatever reasons used to maintain that it is "natural" that we be able to do it. What if we cannot do it (for whatever reason)? In that case, those believing we have such a natural right claim only that we should be able to do it.

"Natural rights", to the extent they're not legal rights, are what people wish were legal rights. In other words, they wish they were recognized and enforceable within a system of laws we make. Otherwise, they're merely what we think we should be allowed to do without hinderance and without being subject to penalty.

Précisément! Hence, the OP's claim that the philosopher will not find God — Agent Smith

If that's true, Augustine was no philosopher, as he thought he--more than anyone--had found him.

si comprhendis non est deus, — Agent Smith

Si ENIM comprehendis, non est deus. Roughly, "if you can comprehend it, it isn't God."

That was Augustine, of course. Never let comprehension get in his way.

Impersonal gods are not worth talking to or (therefore) talking about. Stick to physics, no impersonal god will care. — unenlightened

If god is immanent in the universe, we talk about god all the time. Even physicists.

What this shows is that ubiquitously, folk do not make decisions on the basis of rationally maximising their self-interest. Some other factor intervenes. What that is, is open to further research. — Banno

Need would be a factor, I would think. In other words, the extent to which the money is needed And need would have to be taken into account in determining what constitutes rational "self-interest."

Somehow the issue slid from whether women should have bodily autonomy to whether one should chew on a wafer. — Banno

Aha! So you think there's a difference between those issues? Perhaps that's because one is an ethical issue and the other is not. I win!