That comment says much more about you, baker, than about me.

You don't have Asperger's and you know damn well what I'm talking about.

Clearly you don't.

I want to know what use is there in reading those old books. — baker

That is a good question. The answer in large part depends on how one reads these books and what is expected of them.

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? — baker

I don't want to put words into Wayfarer's mouth but isn't one of his opinions that the post enlightenment worldview, especially that of the current, post-Darwinian era holds a limited physicalist metaphysics and has rejected much wisdom that was ours for millennia? I imagine that these old books contain some of this repudiated knowledge and many other ideas besides worth cultivating.

What use are these books of "ancient wisdom" today?

Whatever uses we can make of their lessons.

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. — baker

Of course! One of the things I've regretted in my adult life, is the paucity of my education in the classics of ancient literature and philosophy. I was always a poor student, for various reasons, but aside from that, hardly any of this material was on my curriculum. Later in life, I've come to realise just how profound the classical philosophical tradition is, even though my knowledge of it is fragmentary. In my view - which is shared with Pierre Hadot, who is a scholar of the history of philosophy - most of what passes for philosophy in today's world, has nothing to do with philosophy as understood in the classical tradition. Philosophy proper is a transformative understanding of the nature of life.

On the other hand, it's mistaken to idolise the ancients, (or anything for that matter), and ancient cultures had their own shortcomings and blind-spots, no doubt. But the 'sacred thread' that runs through Greek philosophy and the formation of Western culture is unique and important, and constantly under attack from degenerative forces, principally materialism in all its forms, which has hijacked the terminology of philosophy whilst rejecting its meaning.

:ok:

... the paucity of my education in the classics of ancient literature and philosophy.

But the 'sacred thread' that runs through Greek philosophy and the formation of Western culture is unique and important, and constantly under attack from degenerative forces, principally materialism in all its forms, which has hijacked the terminology of philosophy whilst rejecting its meaning. — Wayfarer

Thales, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, and others were all materialists in some form.

Is there anything more to it than nostalgia? — baker

That is an interesting way to frame the question, the pain of losing the past.

On a personal level, the past is what happened to me and what I can remember about the events. Short term memory becomes some other thing after a while. It is difficult to keep the past alive.

An interest in the "old books" can be based upon how they are the parents of the new ones. The new books try to mark out what is original against the background of what has already been said. The old books did the same. Is there an absolute now that allows us to escape that process?

... the 'sacred thread' that runs through Greek philosophy and the formation of Western culture is unique and important, and constantly under attack from degenerative forces, principally materialism in all its forms, which has hijacked the terminology of philosophy whilst rejecting its meaning. — Wayfarer

How can that be when "materialism" was there, almost from the beginning as this "sacred thread" unspooled, from Thales to Leucippus & Democritus to the Epicureans featured exclusively in Book X of Diogenes Laërtius' masterwork and Lucretius ... which parallels (or was inspired by) the "materialisms" of the Cārvāka in India and exemplified by the Chinese astronomer-philosopher Wang Chong during the Han Dynasty?

What are you talking about, Wayf? Naturalists and atomists (re: materialists) have always belonged to the counter, more radical, tradition within the idealist-dominant, cultural mainstream of Western philosophy.

And besides: in this world, what could be more "degenerative" than otherworldly – therefore nihilistic (Nietzsche) – idealism "in all of its forms" (e.g. platonic, cartesian, subjective, transcendental, absolute, linguistic)?

Thales, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, and others were all materialists in some form. — Fooloso4

How can that be when "materialism" was there, almost from the beginning as they "sacred thread" unspooled, from Thales to Leucippus & Democritus to the Epicureans featured exclusively in Book X of Diogenes Laërtius' masterwork and Lucretius ... which parallels (or was inspired by) the "materialisms" of the Cārvāka in India and exemplified by the Chinese astronomer-philosopher Wang Chong during the Han Dynasty? — 180 Proof

Materialists represent one tendency or pole in the dialectic in those cultures. In the modern period, it took on a modern form. The French philosophers of the Enlightenment re-discovered Lucretius. Baron D'Holbach's 'all I see are bodies in motion' is directly from that source. But the fact that it's always existed doesn't validate it. It's a natural thing to believe, as we appear to be sorrounded by material objects, but that too doesn't validate it.

Beside physics itself has undermined materialism. Paul Davies and John Gribben's book The Matter Myth, published decades ago, it is about how 20th century physics completely torpedoed classical materialism, as Heisenberg said a few decades beforehand. There are thousands of books out there saying the same. Materialism, in the Democritean or Lucretian form, as in the ultimate existence of point-particles, is dead and buried.

During the nineteenth century, the development of chemistry and the theory of heat conformed very closely to the ideas first put forward by Leucippus and Democritus. A revival of the materialist philosophy in its modern form, that of dialectical materialism, was this a natural counterpart to the impressive advances made during this period in chemistry and physics. The concept of the atom had proved exceptionally fruitful in the explanation of chemical bonding and the physical behavior of gases. It was soon, however, that the particles called atoms by the chemist were composed of still smaller units. But these smaller units, the electrons, followed by the atomic nuclei and finally the elementary particles, protons and neutrons, also still seemed to be atoms from the standpoint of the materialist philosophy. The fact that, at least indirectly, one can actually see a single elementary particle—in a cloud chamber, say, or a bubble chamber—supports the view that the smallest units of matter are real physical objects, existing in the same sense that stones or flowers do.

But the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. — Werner Heisenberg The Debate between Plato and Democritus

I think the form materialism takes in the modern age is simply the methods of scientists and engineers applied to the problems of philosophy. When those principles are applied to the problems that they're suitable for, such as technology and medicine, then the results are often spectacular and (hopefully) beneficial (although the same wizadry that produces brain-assisted prosthetics can also produce killer robots). It's when they're applied to the problems of philosophy that they're completly unsuitable, notwithstanding that this is not even understood by many of its proponents.

As for the Cārvāka in India, they were very similar to today's variety. There's a charming character, representative of their school, in the early Buddhist texts called Prince Payasi, who ordered condemned prisoners to be sealed in clay pots to see if the soul could be observed escaping when it was unsealed. (It couldn't.) Materialist of that kind are classified as nihilists in Buddhist literature.

Heisenberg disingenously poses a contrast between a philosopher for whom almost all of his writings are lost and a later philosopher who left an encyclopedia of texts. C'mon. And as for Davies and Gribbin, they compare apples and oranges too in order to argue from the position that QM, etc "refutes" materialism, rather than to that position, given that the latter is a speculative, or philosophically interpretative, stance and the former a scientific theory.

Analogously, I think interpreting classical 'atoms' as quarks (or even quanta) and 'void' as QM field is valid as I've previously mentioned without rebuttal. Paraphrasing Churchill, 'materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed.

Paraphrasing Churchill, 'materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed. — 180 Proof

That's pretty funny. :clap:

I think interpreting classical 'atoms' as quarks (or even quanta) and 'void' as QM field is valid as I've previously mentioned without rebuttal. — 180 Proof

I think the most pregnant phrase in Heisenberg's quote is that sub-atomic particles don't exist in the same way as flowers, stones, and so on. Implicitly, this re-introduces modal metaphysics, in that things can exist in different ways (see this article.)

Whereas in Democritean atomism, a thing either exists or doesn't exist - all that exists being atoms and the void. So the atom is completely existent, the void is completely non-existent. But that is precisely what is being called into question.

And consider this - we know about electric and atomic fields, because they show up in the kinds of experiments, and using the kinds of equipment, that are likely to detect those fields. And even so, nobody knows what 'fields' really are. But what if there are fields of completely different kinds, like biological fields, or mental fields? A science which methodically excludes consideration of anything of the kind is bound not to acknowledge them, but they might be equally fundamental to the constitution of living beings. And besides, it has to be acknowledged that there are enormous gaps in current physics, with 96% of the totality of the Universe existing in some form that science can't even fathom.

materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed. — 180 Proof

You'd agree with this passage from Richard Lewontin's review of one of Carl Sagan's books, wouldn't you?

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

My interpretation is that this attitude is actually the direct descendant of Western monotheism - but with 'the Cosmos' in the place of God - Carl Sagan himself said 'Cosmos is all there is" - and 'scientific laws' standing in for divine commandments (Whitehead says in Science and the Modern World that they our modern equivalent of 'the decrees of Fate'.) The jealous God dies hard!

:sweat:

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. — Apollodorus

What if wisdom consists in ataraxia, though? What if it consists in simply following your inclinations and conscience, of being yourself fearlessly, and being skeptical of external so-called authorities and traditional methods as paths to wisdom and of any claims that we need to rely on such things to gain wisdom?

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

In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle positioned contemplation as the most virtuous activity. The highest form of thinking is thinking about thinking. This is directly from Plato where the highest form of knowledge is knowledge of intelligible objects, i.e. knowledge of knowledge.

But in Aristotle's cosmology he posited eternal circular motions. as the orbits of the planets. Then to support the eternal circular motions he posit unmoved movers involved in the virtuous circular thinking of thinking on thinking. The idea of eternal circular orbits has been proven faulty, and circular thinking is now considered a vicious circle. So this aspect of his metaphysics seems to have failed

However, he left another door open in his Nichomachean Ethics. He divided knowledge into practical and theoretical, which was quite a bit different from Plato's division. Each section has different levels, but what happens is that "intuition" is designated as the highest form of knowledge, in both the theoretical and the practical divisions. It's difficult to grasp exactly what intuition is supposed to be, but it seems be something concerning the relating of theory to practise, and practise to theory.

Materialists — Wayfarer

You might be interested in the following quotes:

I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. — Werner Heisenberg

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. — Niels Bohr

Both, it seems, were referring to the fact that quarks, the smallest units of matter, behave like mathematical points. I got that from Marcus du Sautoy's book What We Don't Know.

I did mention that Heisenberg quote above.

I'm not convinced there are any 'smallest units of matter', as such. The entities that exist on that scale are only 'particles' by way of analogy. Paul Davies, who I mentioned above, has been writing about this for decades - Matter Myth, God and the New Physics, Goldilocks Enigma, and other such titles. Not to forget Tao of Physics, which despite it's many critics, was still a ground-breaker.

in Aristotle's cosmology he posited eternal circular motions. as the orbits of the planets. Then to support the eternal circular motions he posit unmoved movers involved in the virtuous circular thinking of thinking on thinking. The idea of eternal circular orbits has been proven faulty, and circular thinking is now considered a vicious circle. So this aspect of his metaphysics seems to have failed — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course that is true. Galileo rightly demolished Aristotelian physics but there's a deeper issue, which is along with it, banishing the idea of any purpose other than mechanical interaction. And besides in many other respects Aristotle's philosophy still has much to commend it. But you can't deny the aspects of it that were just plain mistaken, either.

I did mention that Heisenberg quote above.

I'm not convinced there are any 'smallest units of matter', as such. The entities that exist on that scale are only 'particles' by way of analogy. Paul Davies, who I mentioned above, has been writing about this for decades - Matter Myth, God and the New Physics, Goldilocks Enigma, and other such titles. Not to forget Tao of Physics, which despite it's many critics, was still a ground-breaker. — Wayfarer

Oh! So we're on a similar if not the same "wavelength". Glad to know that. I feel I'm in good company. :up: Resonance! I hear ya!

Here's the deal!

If the very small are but ideas, doesn't that mean the very big (the universe comes to mind but maybe there are things bigger than it) could also be just an idea?

Reminds me of @Devans99's argument that infinity is a nonsensical idea in re points and lines. Faer argument proceeds like so: Mathematical points are dimensionless (size 0 like many of our anorexic, malnourished super models). How can then a line, a set of such points, exist. How can a series, any series of zeros (points) add up to a line, a nonzero object? How can quarks (point particles) yield matter? Is matter an illusion?

There have been some materialists in the ancient times, but they were just a few individuals scattered here and there, and in the pre socratic times. It is not that they were the materialists who denounced minds and souls, but when they were asking what the universe is made of, the materials were what they were seeing and touching. In that regard they were not the diehard materialists as such, but rather pseudo or scientific materialists.

The main domineering philosophical school was the idealism headed by Plato and his followers.

Of course that is true. Galileo rightly demolished Aristotelian physics but there's a deeper issue, which is along with it, banishing the idea of any purpose other than mechanical interaction. And besides in many other respects Aristotle's philosophy still has much to commend it. But you can't deny the aspects of it that were just plain mistaken, either. — Wayfarer

The fundamental issue I see is the continuity of existence. This is the question of how do some things remain the same, as time passes, in a changing world. The idea of eternal circular motions supports what was observed in the world as a continuous sameness.

When the Aristotelian assumption was removed, there was no replacement provided. Instead, the continuity of existence was taken for granted, as expressed by Newton's first law of motion. Notice the difference between Aristotle and Newton. Aristotle has a reasoned eternal motion, a perfect circle has no beginning or end, so if something is moving in a perfect circle it could just keep going around forever, perpetual motion. Newton, on the other hand, assumed any, or every motion is eternal, unless it is caused, by a force, to change. I hope you can see the fundamental difference here. In Aristotle, there must be a reason for the temporal continuity of motion, and existence in general, but in Newton that continuity is taken for granted.

In modernity an important problem has evolved. Newton did not actually take the continuity of motion completely for granted, as stated in his first law, he presented this law as dependent on the Will of God. So it was granted by God, and dependent on His Will. Therefore we have implicit within that law, the requirement of the Will of God, in order for that law to be a reasonable law. This is part of the process of Neo-Platonist metaphysics becoming supreme over Aristotelian metaphysics in western society. Material existence for Aristotelian metaphysics is supported by the eternal circular motions, and the divine thinking which is thinking on thinking, whereas the Neo-Platonist perspective from Augustine supplanted the divine thinking with the Will of God.

Modern western society in its atheist tendency, has removed the Will of God, and left Newton's first law as unsupported and unreasonable. So we have in quantum mechanics for example, nothing to support a temporal continuity of fundamental particles. The wisdom of the ancient people tells us very explicitly that the temporal continuity of material existence, from one moment to the next, is not something which we can take for granted. It must be supported by reasoned principles. When the reasoned principles which have been handed down to us over time (the Will of God) appear to no longer be reasonable, we cannot just dump them and forget them as if they've provided no service to us, they need to be rethought, and restructured, or else we are left with a huge hole in our understanding of reality.

What if wisdom consists in ataraxia, though? — Janus

Ataraxia can get you anywhere. You need to take the beginning, the center, and the end, i.e., "s", "o", ph", "i", "a", and discard the "ch", "i", "z", "r", "e", "n" to get it right. :smile:

Otherwise put, you need some reference to external realities (and authorities) to make sure you don't go to places where you don't want to be.

You went from a false claim about

the classical philosophical tradition — Wayfarer

to contemporary physics. The classical philosophical tradition is not what you imagine it to be. The philosophers did away with the gods of the poets and priests. They were guided by reason rather than mythology.

But the fact that it's always existed doesn't validate it. — Wayfarer

What is validated is that is played a significant part in the tradition.

... banishing the idea of any purpose other than mechanical interaction — Wayfarer

That the universe itself acts purposively is analogical. The fact that some living things act purposively does not mean that the universe does. Rather than rule it out it is a question of why it should be ruled in.

Ataraxia can get you anywhere. You need to take the beginning, the center, and the end, i.e., "s", "o", ph", "i", "a", and discard the "ch", "i", "z", "r", "e", "n" to get it right. :smile:

Otherwise put, you need some reference to external realities (and authorities) to make sure you don't go to places where you don't want to be. — Apollodorus

I think on that point we will remain in disagreement. I see the arts and free-thinking philosophy as alternative "ways" to following any of the "external authorities". What you say may be true for some, but not all, in my opinion. I mean how could we possibly justify a belief that we can speak for all anyway?

I see the arts and free-thinking philosophy as alternative "ways" to following any of the "external authorities". What you say may be true for some, but not all, in my opinion. I mean how could we possibly justify a belief that we can speak for all anyway? — Janus

I never said to "follow external authorities" in the sense of entering into some form of master-disciple relationship, only to refer to them as a general standard. We do that anyway by learning from parents, teachers, experts, etc.

The artist or free-thinking philosopher does not invent his or her own reality, method or technique. They learn from others and remain in contact with others of their kind and with the general public.

In other words, yes, we are artists or free-thinkers, but we don't operate in isolation, we keep our feet on the ground and stay in touch with reality including with people that can give us advice on matters of importance.

Whether or not any of us feels the need to subordinate themselves to an external authority is of course a personal choice and in some cases may not even be necessary, as you say.

:up:

OK it seems I misinterpreted what we're saying. I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix.

You went from a false claim about

the classical philosophical tradition
— Wayfarer

to contemporary physics. — Fooloso4

There are many references to Greek philosophy in Heisenberg's later philosophical writings. The passage I quoted was from his lecture, The Debate between Plato and Democritus.

That the universe itself acts purposively is analogical. The fact that some living things act purposively does not mean that the universe does. Rather than rule it out it is a question of why it should be ruled in. — Fooloso4

Because then you have the problem of how purpose arises out of purposelessness. By accident, is the presumed answer, if it is ruled out. I think that issue arises very early in Greek philosophy and finds final form in Aristotle's Aitia and scheme of fourfold causation.

I agree we are not isolated individuals; we always live and think within a received cultural matrix. — Janus

Not only that, but even in terms of finding our own way toward the attainment of wisdom, we cannot do it in complete isolation but need at least from time to time to turn to external points of reference in order to verify that what we have found or are in the process of finding is indeed wisdom and not something else.