Daodejing, Laozi
• Ping fa, Sunzi
• De Rerum Natura, Lucretius^
• Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus
• Enchiridion of Epictetus, ed. Arrian — 180 Proof

Can you please summarize all of these books in one or two sentences? E.g.

1. Daodejing: The way to live is to know how to die! :chin: This is just my own interpretation of Daoism. Yours will be different of course!

Pleaaaaasssseee! :smile:

I'll take Sextus Empiricus and Pyrrhonism, but it's doubtful whether skepticism can be classed as a form of wisdom. Perhaps it is better classified as a way toward wisdom.

But this would cast a shadow of doubt on all the methods, techniques, or practises, as to whether they are actually wisdom, or ways toward wisdom. If wisdom is what is produced from the practice, therefore something other than the practise itself, it would be an end to which the practise is a means. Then we need to be able to judge the various practises themselves as to efficacy for obtaining that end. This requires that we have a determination as to what wisdom itself is, as something separate from the practise, which is observed to be the result of the practise. Otherwise we can list all sorts of practises with no criteria as to how they are related to "wisdom".

Otherwise we can list all sorts of practises with no criteria as to how they are related to "wisdom". — Metaphysician Undercover

Totally agree. If lifelong perpetual doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by more doubting, questioning, and inquiring, followed by rejection of all conclusions, principles, and guidelines, and systematic dismissal of the possibility of ever actually knowing anything, constitutes "wisdom" then we might as well forget about it.

Moreover, if to the general self-imposed skepticism, nihilism, and sophistry we add Straussian esotericism, then we are on the sure road (or shortcut) to pseudo-philosophical acrobatics bordering on the delusional and the schizoaffective. Quite the opposite of what Socrates and Plato aimed to achieve IMHO ... :smile:

I agree and would add that it is not just a matter of time but of place. The problem is compounded by the fact that it is not only a question of how Maimonides or Spinoza read those who came before and what they said about them but of how we today read them.

The philosopher is not a scholar. His concern is not to explicate the work of his predecessors. He appropriates them and uses them in the service of his own teachings. The comparison between Maimonides and Spinoza is particularly instructive. Both had to navigate between conflicting worldviews.

I wouldn't include it among primary sources for material of that era (which was in any case medieval rather than ancient.) — Wayfarer

The OP is framed in terms of ancient and modern. He was not a modern philosopher.

As to his importance:

Succeeding generations of philosophers wrote extensive commentaries on his works, which influenced thinkers as diverse as Aquinas, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Newton. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/)

Maimonides is a medieval Jewish philosopher with considerable influence on Jewish thought, and on philosophy in general. Maimonides also was an important codifier of Jewish law. His views and writings hold a prominent place in Jewish intellectual history.

His works swiftly caused considerable controversy, especially concerning the relations between reason and revelation. Indeed, scholarly debates continue on Maimonides’ commitments to philosophy and to Judaism as a revealed religion. However, there is no question that his philosophical works have had a profound impact extending beyond Jewish philosophy. For instance, Aquinas and Leibniz are among the non-Jewish philosophers influenced by Maimonides. (https://iep.utm.edu/maimonid/)

And also a polemic seeking to reconcile arcane theological terms with recondite philosophical argument. — Wayfarer

Can you give specific examples? The Guide takes common terms such as the hand, the finger, and the face of God and argues that they should not be taken literally.

In addition to not having access to the Platonic corpus except in incomplete Arabic translations or commentaries, Maimonides had no interest in Plato. In fact, he simply used Greek philosophy – as seen through the eyes of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina - to construct his own philosophy.

And Maimonides has certainly been used by the likes of Leo Strauss as a vehicle for the fabrication and promulgation of some really strange ideas.

First of all, there are theorists (following in the tradition of Leo Strauss) who view Maimonides as committed to esoteric writing strategies rooted in socio-political considerations—essentially, on such a view, Maimonides will often be seen to have written the exact opposite of what he truly believed. For these theorists, the stated view of Maimonides will almost always be in extreme contrast to his true, unstated view [for a related discussion. Applying this theoretical starting point to the case at hand, the fact that Maimonides seems to embrace creation ex nihilo would suggest to some that he truly believed in Aristotelian eternity, the opposite view ….

The Influence of Islamic Thought on Maimonides - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Strauss happened to read al-Farabi and Maimonides who lived in Muslim-occupied Spain - when philosophers had to be very careful about what they said - and developed the theory that all ancient philosophers had “secret teachings”. As a political philosopher and atheist, he believes that Plato’s dialogues have a hidden political message and he makes no effort to see anything metaphysical in the dialogues. In fact, he positively resists the idea just as he ridicules Plato’s theory of Forms.

Why Plato thought of this apparently fantastic doctrine [of the Forms] is a very difficult question. ... According to an interpretation which I read in certain writers, Plato teaches that there is an idea of everything which is designated by a term which is not a proper name. There is no idea of Socrates. But whenever you find a noun or an adjective, there is surely an idea conforming to that. My favorite example is the third undersecretary of the Garment Workers Union. Even if there exists only one of those, there could exist an indefinite number, and therefore there is is an idea of it. Somehow this sounds like an absolutely absurd doctrine. What is the use of such a duplication?

- L Strauss, On Plato's Symposium, p. 199

I think that to dismiss an idea out of hand is a rather unscholarly and unphilosophical approach. When combined with Straussian esotericism, it makes a mockery of any author, ancient or modern.

Strauss has an idiosyncratic, not to say unique, reading of the ancients: he reads them as Machiavellians, or even Nietzscheans. Strauss is a Machiavellian of a peculiar sort, however. Strauss favors the ancients, who agree with Machiavelli in all respects but one: they are atheistic and amoral, like Machiavelli and Nietzsche, but are critical of the moderns for openly admitting these things. The truth, according to Strauss, is that there is no God, no divine or natural support for justice, no human good other than pleasure. Strauss, in a word, is a nihilist ...

- C Zuckert and M Zuckert, The Truth about Leo Strauss

Yes, each of my selections can be characterized better as "a way towards wisdom" (i.e. philosophy) than as "wisdom" itself (i.e. sophistry).

(1) Daodejing, Laozi
(2) Ping fa, Sunzi
(3) De Rerum Natura, Lucretius^
(4) Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus
(5) Enchiridion of Epictetus, ed. Arrian
— 180 Proof

Can you please summarize all of these books in one or two sentences? — TheMadFool

It's probably unwise, Fool, to spoon-feed (i.e. "summarize") what you can easily find yourself by searching Google, SEP & wikipedia. That said, and given I'm not wise myself, I'll say only what each book has meant to me:

1. 'to flow with the complementarities of nature'
2. 'high stakes strategic thinking & preparation'
3. 'an immanent way of reducing misery'
4. 'the undecidability of philosophical (& religious) statements'
5. 'exercises in equanimity'

(1) Daodejing, Laozi
(2) Ping fa, Sunzi
(3) De Rerum Natura, Lucretius^
(4) Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus
(5) Enchiridion of Epictetus, ed. Arrian
— 180 Proof

Can you please summarize all of these books in one or two sentences?
— TheMadFool
It's probably unwise, Fool, to spoon-feed (i.e. "summarize") what you can easily find yourself by searching Google, SEP & wikipedia. That said, and given I'm not wise myself, I'll say only what each book has meant to me:

1. 'to flow with the complementarities of nature'
2. 'high stakes strategic thinking & preparation'
3. 'an immanent way of reducing misery'
4. 'the undecidability of philosophical (& religious) statements'
5. 'exercises in equanimity' — 180 Proof

A gazillion thanks 180 Proof, a gazillion thanks! :up: :fire:

And also a polemic seeking to reconcile arcane theological terms with recondite philosophical argument.
— Wayfarer

Can you give specific examples? — Fooloso4

No. If I'm mistaken in that regard, I stand corrected.

However, wisdom is composed not only of knowledge, but also of experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, i think there's a key term missing in the Western philosophical lexicon, which is 'reaiisation' or 'awakening' in sense in which I think it is conveyed in Eastern philosophy. It's been subsumed under 'religious conversion' in Western culture, but I think it's something distinct from that, because religious conversions can occur which provide no real intellectual illumination in the sense intended by that term. The only source I'm aware of that discusses the distinction is Buddhist:

In Buddhism, we distinguish between spiritual experiences and spiritual realizations. Spiritual experiences are usually more vivid and intense than realizations because they are generally accompanied by physiological and psychological changes. Realizations, on the other hand, may be felt, but the experience is less pronounced. Realization is about acquiring insight. Therefore, while realizations arise out of our spiritual experiences, they are not identical to them. Spiritual realizations are considered vastly more important because they cannot fluctuate. — Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

Maybe a topic for another thread, though.

↪baker :roll: — 180 Proof

If you were to meet those ancient authors, philosophers, wise men, what would they think of you?

Are you sure they wouldn't scorn you, reject you as a worthless man? Would they consider you a potential friend?

Laozi & Lucretius, I imagine, would take me in their stride easy enough. Can't say that about the others though, or see why that matters one way or the other.

Laozi & Lucretius, I imagine, would take me in their stride easy enough. Can't say that about the others though, or see why that matters one way or the other. — 180 Proof

It matters because by studying and appreciating those ancient authors, one is basically putting oneself in a fantasy social relationship that is only one-way, one-sided. It's a type of parasocial interaction. One is trying to be part of a community, even if just in an abstract sense, from which one has no feedback as to whether that community would accept one or not. One is living in the delusion that one has found a community of like-minded people, even if just through books, when in fact one is just as alone and isolated as before, except that one is spending real time and energy on people who don't reciprocate, thus missing real world opportunities for reciprocal interactions.

A series from Princeton Press. Details here https://press.princeton.edu/series/ancient-wisdom-for-modern-readers — Wayfarer

I don't mean to be contrarian.
But what is the use of this ancient wisdom? How can it be used nowadays?

Unless one has already internalized the worldview that has produced that wisdom, that wisdom can, at most, serve as self-helpy "tips and tricks" that a person will possibly employ in ways not originally intended (because the person cannot understand that wisdom, due to not having internalized the worldview that produced it).

And even if one were to somehow internalize that ancient worldview, it would put one at a disadvantage in the modern world which doesn't function by that ancient worldview.

So why read those old books?

You're deluding yourself that any delusion is involved other than your own.

So you go for beers with Laozi & Lucretius?

I think we'd go on a long hike and vape some mad shit instead. They talk, I listen.

They talk, I listen. — 180 Proof

Unlike some here who would do most of the talking.

Yes, each of my selections can be characterized better as "a way towards wisdom" (i.e. philosophy) than as "wisdom" itself (i.e. sophistry). — 180 Proof

Do you equate wisdom with sophistry? I would think that wisdom is more the opposite of sophistry, the capacity to detect, identify, and disprove sophistry.

Only sophists claim to be wise, or to possess "wisdom". Sophistry, as you know, comes from sophos meaning "wise man" (sophia "wise woman"). Socrates in Plato's dialogues unmasks those who claim "wisdom" as not being wise at all since they don't even understand that they are not wise. In the context of what I wrote, this is what I alluding to with Socratic irony.

Only sophists claim to be wise, or to possess "wisdom". — 180 Proof

In modern usage we normally refer to others as being wise, like in this thread, Wayfarer refers to the wisdom of the ancient people. So in this context it's a judgement concerning others, not about oneself. And, as I mentioned in the other post, one might have the goal of being wise, and look for a method to provide this end, without ever thinking oneself to be wise.

Socrates in Plato's dialogues unmasks those who claim "wisdom" as not being wise at all — 180 Proof

Well, he certainly argued that. He also argued that transcendant forms are the foundation of reality and that democracy is wrongheaded. He also was a rationalist, as opposed to an empiricist, which can be seen in his claim about wisdom. He was a dualist who believed in an immortal soul. Now some or perhaps none of these beliefs bother you be he seems to have considered his arguments effective on these, including his about wisdom (or was that one a claim). I am not sure he unmasked anyone claiming to have wisdom (a description of his positing which includes the assumption that his argument holds) as being a sophist in the pejorative sense. He certainly had that position. Whether his various arguments and claims hold water is another can of fish and perhaps a claim to his authority might no longer be so strong for many modern people basing their beliefs on science, for example.

It seems to me many people claiming to have wisdom are not that wise - just my opinion. On the other hand, at least they are openly claiming it, rather than implying it.

And your point (in conflating Plato's metaphysics with Socrates' elenchus) replying to my previous post?

[A] too-often neglected feature of the ancient conception on philosophy as a way of life, Hadot argues, was a set of discourses aiming to describe the figure of the Sage. The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul” (WAP 220). Across the schools, Socrates himself was agreed to have been perhaps the only living exemplification of such a figure (his avowed agnoia notwithstanding). Pyrrho and Epicurus were also accorded this elevated status in their respective schools, just as Sextius and Cato were deemed sages by Seneca, and Plotinus by Porphyry.

Yet more important than documenting the lives of historical philosophers (although this was another ancient literary genre) was the idea of the Sage as “transcendent norm.” The aim, by picturing such figures, was to give “an idealized description of the specifics of the way of life” that was characteristic of the each of the different schools (WAP 224). The philosophical Sage, in all the ancient discourses, is characterized by a constant inner state of happiness or serenity. This has been achieved through minimizing his bodily and other needs, and thus attaining to the most complete independence (autarcheia) vis-à-vis external things. ...

Aristotle equates the contemplation of the wise man with the self-contemplation of the unmoved mover. Platonic philosophy sees ascent in wisdom as progressive assimilation to the divine (WAP 226-7). Hadot goes as far as to suggest that Plotinus and other ancient philosophers “project” the figure of the God, on the basis of their conception of the figure of the Sage, as a kind of model of human and intellectual perfection” (WAP 227-8). However, Hadot stresses that the divine freedom of the Sage from the concerns of ordinary human beings does not mean the Sage lacks all concern for the things that preoccupy other human beings. Indeed, in a series of remarkable analyses, Hadot argues that this indifference towards external goods (money, fame, property, office . . . ) opens the Sage to a different, elevated state of awareness in which he “never ceases to have the whole present in his mind, never forgets the world, thinks and acts in relation to the cosmos . . . ” — IEP Entry on Pierre Hadot

.

Plato was clearly concerned not only with the state of his soul, but also with his relation to the universe at the deepest level. Plato’s metaphysics was not intended to produce merely a detached understanding of reality. His motivation in philosophy was in part to achieve a kind of understanding that would connect him (and therefore every human being) to the whole of reality – intelligibly and if possible satisfyingly. ....

The Platonic sense of the world is that its intelligibility and the development of beings to whom it is intelligible are nonaccidental; so our awareness and its expansion as part of the history of life and of our species are part of the natural evolution of the cosmos. Without a religious interpretation, this view does not face the problem of evil, or the problem of whether the whole process is aiming at any result. But it does expand our sense of what a human life is. — Thomas Nagel, Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament

Well, we only know Socrates through Plato, including his 'unmasking' if he managed it. Are you really saying that Socrates was not a dualist, rationalist, advocate against democracy, etc.? And how do you know this? My point with bringing these things up is to say that his assertions include those, as far as we know, ideas that generally are not held today. Of course Socrates may not have had positions attributed by Plato, but then that would include the ones you seem to accept. And there his demonstration that those who claim to be wise are not was not based on empirical study and really comes down to opinion with some deduction thrown in. Someone who thinks they are wise and asserts it may very well have wisdom about a lot of things.

So why read those old books? — baker

As I said before, I posted the link for those interested. There's no penalty for not being interested. I would add, though, that these works have the status of classics, because they've retained interest and validity from ancient times. It's impossible to know what of our current philosophical oeuvre wil be read and appreciated centuries from now, it's the kind of perspective that only the passage of a lot of time will provide.

It would depend on what subjects they are. Science and Politics have moved on. Literature, Art, Psychology and Philosophy are timeless.

I would add, though, that these works have the status of classics, because they've retained interest and validity from ancient times. — Wayfarer

I agree. I've put Cicero's How to Win an Argument on my reading list and there are a few others that sound worthwhile reading.

Unlike some here who would do most of the talking. — Fooloso4

Thank heavens that false humility makes for false pride!

They talk, I listen. — 180 Proof

IOW, a hierarchical one-way relationship in which you are the underdog.
IRL, you'd get tired of such an arrangement quickly.

So why read those old books?
— baker

As I said before, I posted the link for those interested. There's no penalty for not being interested. — Wayfarer

No, I want to know what use is there in reading those old books. Don't just brush this off idly, it's not an idle question.

Is there anything more to it than nostalgia?