No, I cannot be certain I am in pain. For example, there are phantom pains from people with amputated limbs. — Waya

I'\ll invite you to reconsider. Are you really willing to claim that a phantom pain is not a pain? Just so as not to lose a philosophical point?

Well, I have no way of actually knowing that this thread even exists. It may just be my imagination. — Waya

Does this really claim anything more than that you lack the courage of your convictions? Because in every other way, you behave as if such things as this thread exist.

Hmm, so basically the Stoics say to avoid attachment? — Waya

It's best to avoid using the word 'basically' in relation to anything Stoic. Their position is very nuanced. To completely avoid attachment can be to lose much of what is valuable in life. But to become too attached renders one fragile, and often unnecessarily miserable. I think its about avoiding excessive attachment, or perhaps dependent attachment. Ditto for Buddhists.

There are good examples of straying to extremes either side of that balance point. We all know the tropes of the excessively needy romantic partner who feels like they don't have any existence separate from their partner, and whose life falls to pieces when they split up. At the other extreme is what was sometimes said of Marcus Aurelius - that he distanced himself so far from his family and friends that he lost all zest for life.

If one declares that pain is something that is received via stimuli on the sensory nerves, then yes. Perceptions of phantom pain are something different, which I profess no expertise on.

Of course I act as though this thread exists because I believe it to exist. I can't know it exists though.

Hmmm, very interesting point.

Why would one do that? It seems a long stretch in order to save a pet theroy about certainty.

Why not? Do you think it not true? But then you would be believing things that are not true...

Or do you think it lacks justification? What more justification could you want: here is the thread.

Or are you just unable to commit?

At the other extreme is what was sometimes said of Marcus Aurelius - that he distanced himself so far from his family and friends that he lost all zest for life. — andrewk

Would you posit that this is the result of taking the Stoic conception of "apatheia" to the extreme, hence the modern negative connotation with "apathy"?

I am not certain that I exist, but I believe I exist. It is an assumption. — Waya

It is impossible to doubt that which you constantly affirm. The certainty of your presence is clearly expressed by the designation of your identity as an "I". I think what you seek or doubt is the meaning/implication of that certainty.

Yes. However in its modern use 'apathy' usually carries additional connotations of 'neglectful', 'disengaged' and 'unhelpful'. Those would not have applied to Aurelius and not to any successful Stoic, because Duty is a major part of a Stoic's worldview. They will aim to fulfil their duty to their family, friends and society, even if they are not motivated by a passion for the task. Personally, I think the Stoic emphasis on duty is the only really meaningful distinction between Stoics and Epicureans (there is also the distinction that the Epicureans proposed we ignore the Gods whereas the Stoics thought we should respect them, but I see that as a superficial difference).

A Stoic that had overdone the 'detachment' thing would still be a helpful and generous citizen, unlike an apathetic stoner that cares about nothing other than his next stash of weed, or a yuppy that doesn't care about social issues and so doesn't bother to vote unless one party is promising lower taxes than the other, in which case they vote for that one out of self-interest.

One of the core tenets of the sciences is that empirical claims are not provable, they are only provisionally verifiable in lieu of falsification. All scientific claims must be revisable, otherwise they're not scientific claims.

So no one really versed in science was claiming proof or certainty from within its framework in the first place.

Certainty is not worth worrying about.

One of the core tenets of the sciences is that empirical claims are not provable, they are only provisionally verifiable in lieu of falsification. All scientific claims must be revisable, otherwise they're not scientific claims.

So no one really versed in science was claiming proof or certainty from within its framework in the first place.

Certainty is not worth worrying about. — Terrapin Station

It would be wrong to argue from the observation that science does not produce certainty to the conclusion that we can never be certain. There are things other than science. Can you be certain that you are in pain? Or better, can you doubt that you are in pain? — Banno