I put that laugh down when I read something that actually makes me laugh, as your statement did — Garrett Travers

:smile: I make you laugh, huh? God has answered my prayers. Praise the lord!

I make you laugh, huh? God has answered my prayers. Praise the lord! — Agent Smith

Oh, just praise that big ole, sweet, sky-baby, making on the fermaments, and killing his own kids, talking through donkeys and bushes about being worshipped, and not being gay cuz eww, hims just so sweet.

(now imagine me saying this to you in the voice of Zack Galifinakis in The Campaign)

Oh, just praise that big ole, sweet, sky-baby, making on the fermaments, and killing his own kids, talking through donkeys and bushes about being worshipped, and not being gay cuz eww, hims just so sweet.

(now imagine me saying this to you in the voice of Zack Galifinakis in The Campaign) — Garrett Travers

:grin:

To some extent you are, of course, correct. It slips into our thoughts no matter how often repeated our mantras against it.

For myself and my personal journey, the best I have been able to achieve is a kind of pseudo-religious approach of asking myself for forgiveness and doggedly investigating any evidence I find of ingrained belief leading to assumption/presumption of fact over discovery of truth.

I try to name what I think to be true but have not yet had time to really investigate what I "think" or "my theory is" and that's pretty much my mantra. I tell myself "try never to espouse what you have not studied to the limit of your ability".

All of that said, there are obviously still millions of things I take on faith because there is nearly infinite information and only so much time in a mortal life. As so many others have said: this much I know: that I know nothing.

Not replying to anyone but what's up with the philosophical hero worship? Who has the time!?

Just learning the tools to educate myself takes up any time I would ever have to read some navel-gazing windbag let alone read the actual research and papers that provide real insight into the universe.

One doesn't have to read Bacon and Spinoza to surpass them in wisdom, one need only read sci-hub.nl!

I studied philosophy to understand logic, not to understand bad (and ultimately failed) philosophers. In my humble opinion (and based on a great deal of research) the greatest things to come out of philosophy are the lists of formal and informal logical fallacies, mathematics and science.

Learning to use those to search out objective fact is enough to rip open your mind and let in enlightenment without having to ponder what Byron or whotheheckever meant when they said some flowery drivel about divine inspiration.

I learned more about my place in the universe from linear algebra than any philosopher!

(note: I'm a hard-liner for philosophy being a state of mind and a lifetime's journey. I believe we need to teach philosophy as part of elementary education but only the parts that help teach us how to use our limited and flawed minds to better understand the world, not the vapid self-congratulatory morality crap)

That's true, arguments not propositions. But no, you're still wrong: — Garrett Travers

I'm not.

"A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. — Garrett Travers

What you said was that it is impossible for a deductively valid argument to have a false conclusion. That's false - they can obviously have false conclusions. Here's a valid argument with a false conclusion:

1. If today is thursday, then the world is flat
2. Today is thursday
3. Therefore the world is flat.

What I said is that if a deductively valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise is false.

In the above argument, for instance, premise 2 is true and so premise 1 is false.

So you clearly do not know what you're talking about. Confident, yet ignorant - the standard combo.

If an argument is deductively valid, then if its premises are true, so too is its conclusion.

Thus, if the conclusion is false, at least one premise is false.

It reflects poorly on your intelligence if you can't see this.

A deductively valid argument that has true premises is called a 'sound' argument.

Not replying to anyone but what's up with the philosophical hero worship? Who has the time!? — SkyLeach

Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most influenced by and thus he is the most influential philosopher of all, even though he obviously isn't.

And yes, the philosophers themselves are utterly unimportant. It is their arguments that matter.

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death

That's a shit argument because its conclusion is manifestly false - it is contradicted by what our reason tells us - and so at least one premise is false.
And in fact, in this case they both are - premise 1 is false, for there are lots of harms that have no experiential aspect,k and premise 2 is just an assumption - it just assumes that death is the cessation of one's existence.

Here's another:

1. To be harmed by something, you have to exist at the time
2. You do not exist when you die
3. Therefore, your death will not harm you

That's a shit argument because it too has a manifestly false conclusion that contradicts what our reason tells us and thus at least one premise is false. And in this case it is premise 2 as premise 1 does have support from reason, whereas 2 is just an assumption. And thus a devotee of reason will reject 2 on the grounds that 3 is false and 1 is true.

Here's another:

1. If God exists, no evil will exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

That's a shit argument because premise 1 is false. There is nothing inconsistent in God existing and evil existing. For example, there is no logical inconsistency in God existing and a person with an evil disposition existing. God would not have created such a person, but nothing in the definition of God entails that he created anyone. And thus God can exist and another person can exist that God did not create and that person can have an evil disposition. And thus evil can exist consistent with God existing.

Here's another:

1. If we have free will indeterminism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore indeterminism is true.

That's the best argument he made. For 1 is plausible and 2 is even more so. So that one is quite good.

But the rest are shit.

The rest of what Epicurus had to teach was really more to do with how best to make oneself happy, and as such it is not really philosopher proper, but therapy. Don't fear death (for the bad reasons given above). Recognize that there is no God or divine retribution (partly for the bad reason given above). Recognize that most pain is either intense but short lived, or dull and easy to cope with. And don't cultivate expensive tastes or hard to satisfy desires. And don't fall in love or have sex.

That is specifically why he isn't a philosopher. — Garrett Travers

But I am.

The Academy is overrun with social-constructionists, Marxists, relativists, Kantians, Cartesians, Nietzscheans and all other manner of plagiarised, deformed, Christian-Mysticism adapted bullshit used by the controllers to ensure a faith in a non-reality. Which is why I started this thread, to provide an example of a real philosopher, and the most important in the history of the tradition. — Garrett Travers

Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needless to say, they should all be shut down.

I am quite a fan of Descartes and think he was quite right about the immateriality of the mind and the existence of God. But most analytic philosophers would reject immaterialism about the mind and don't believe in God and don't generally have much time for Descartes. So you clearly don't know much about the academy, at least not the philosophy end of it.

Be honest, all you've done is read some popular science books by people talking outside their areas of expertise and some of them have mentioned Epicurus in approving terms (even though that's a bit odd, given his materialism comes from Democritus) and you've thereby decided that Epicurus is the bee's knees, even though no serious philosopher in their right mind would declare him the most influential of all. I mean, have you heard of Plato? What did he do again? Oh, started the first university and provided the metaphysical foundations of Christianity and said so much that someone - Whitehead, I think - said that it would be no exaggeration to characterize the rest of philosophy as just a serious of footnotes to Plato. Whatever happened to universities? Did they take off?

What I said is that if a deductively valid argument has a false conclusion, then at least one premise is false. — Bartricks

Oh, I see. That makes a bit more sense. You've spoken a good deal of horse shit, hard to sift through. Yes, this is true.

Quite. In this particular case it is really a form of Garret Travers self-love, for Epicurus is the philosopher that Garret Travers has been most influenced by and thus he is the most influential philosopher of all, even though he obviously isn't. — Bartricks

No, only recently discovered him in full-force, as in literally the past week. Knew of him, didn't know the full story. And yes, he is, without question.

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death — Bartricks

This is not his argument. You'll find his argument here, listed under line 2: http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html

Now move on from this.

That's a shit argument because premise 1 is false. There is nothing inconsistent in God existing and evil existing. For example, there is no logical inconsistency in God existing and a person with an evil disposition existing. God would not have created such a person, but nothing in the definition of God entails that he created anyone. And thus God can exist and another person can exist that God did not create and that person can have an evil disposition. And thus evil can exist consistent with God existing. — Bartricks

No, it's a first good start for something the vast majority of the population still doesn't understand nearly 2000 years later. And, it's a perfectly good argument because no rational human would create a world with evil in it, and where as god would have to be beyond rational capabilities of any man, then it's not possible for there to be a god. And no, god cannot exist, he will have to be demonstrated to exist, thus both of your arguments are shit, but yours is shittier as it has been 2000 years.

The rest of what Epicurus had to teach was really more to do with how best to make oneself happy, and as such it is not really philosopher proper, but therapy. Don't fear death (for the bad reasons given above). Recognize that there is no God or divine retribution (partly for the bad reason given above). Recognize that most pain is either intense but short lived, or dull and easy to cope with. And don't cultivate expensive tastes or hard to satisfy desires. And don't fall in love or have sex. — Bartricks

These aren't arguments against Epicurus' positions, they're angry tantrums at his superiority over the philosophers you worship that plagiarised him. Again, his societies are the most successful ever. There's no arguing with the record.

But I am. — Bartricks

That remains to be seen.

Social constructivists and marxists and relativists and Nietzscheans are mainly in English departments and other disney disciplines. Needless to say, they should all be shut down. — Bartricks

Finally something pleasant from you, a bit reductionist, but it'll do.

I am quite a fan of Descartes and think he was quite right about the immateriality of the mind and the existence of God. But most analytic philosophers would reject immaterialism about the mind and don't believe in God and don't generally have much time for Descartes. So you clearly don't know much about the academy, at least not the philosophy end of it. — Bartricks

I'm in the Academy. I know exactly what is going on. I simply reject Decartes' immaterialism because nobody has ever presented evidence of non-material existence. Very simple.

Be honest, all you've done is read some popular science books by people talking outside their areas of expertise and some of them have mentioned Epicurus in approving terms (even though that's a bit odd, given his materialism comes from Democritus) and you've thereby decided that Epicurus is the bee's knees, even though no serious philosopher in their right mind would declare him the most influential of all. I mean, have you heard of Plato? What did he do again? Oh, started the first university and provided the metaphysical foundations of Christianity. Whatever happened to those? Did universities take off? They're called Academies, not Gardens. — Bartricks

The only thing I can be honest about is that you have made no case against Epicurus, but for him, by completely strawmanning, ad hominem, and other non sequiturs and fallacies. You simply have not made a case. Democritus may have posited the idea in some loose manner, but it was Epicurus that concretized, and institutionalized in an actually practiced and pursued, and for the right reasons, manner. Plato is not influential, the first attempts of Plato and Aristotle to put their philosophies in practice were utter failures. Which is why Epicurus is clearly the superior, the only thing that ended his peaceful, literarily prolific, anarcho-capitalist communal societies, was Christian mass slaughter and oppression. And no, Epicurean institutions were called Gardens. Now, go get an argument and don't come back until you do.

Oh, I see. That makes a bit more sense. You've spoken a good deal of horse shit, hard to sift through. Yes, this is true. — Garrett Travers

It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to be false.

This is not his argument. You'll find his argument here — Garrett Travers

Seems you don't understand Epicurus either.

No, it's a first good start for something the vast majority of the population still doesn't understand nearly 2000 years later. And, it's a perfectly good argument because no rational human would create a world with evil in it, and where as god would have to be beyond rational capabilities of any man, then it's not possible for there to be a god. And no, god cannot exist, he will have to be demonstrated to exist, thus both of your arguments are shit, but yours is shittier as it has been 2000 years. — Garrett Travers

Er, how did any of that address my point? Do you think that it is impossible for God to exist and for an evilly disposed person to exist? If so, why? Don't tell me God wouldn't create such a person, for I have not suggested he would.

These aren't arguments against Epicurus' positions, they're angry tantrums at his superiority over the philosophers you worship that plagiarised him. Again, his societies are the most successful ever. There's no arguing with the record. — Garrett Travers

I explicitly said that they weren't even philosophical points he was making, but therapeutic ones. But again, understanding is not strong with this one.

But I am.
— Bartricks

That remains to be seen. — Garrett Travers

No. I am.

I'm in the Academy. I know exactly what is going on. — Garrett Travers

Well, there are kitchens in the Academy and burgers won't flip themselves. Anyway, you clearly don't a clue. You've just been watching too much Jordan Peterson or something. The rest was just silly.

Well I'd take it one further in fact. The premise claims that to be [deleterious effect] by [thing] you must [experience pro/con effect] of [thing] but never mentions the axiomatic truth that nothing in the universe has ever been observed to be composed of a pure or base elment.

It doesn't matter if [thing] is material or merely a representation of the material the same holds true.

Thus the conclusion is also manifestly false because it's really saying that to experience negative effect you must experience a significant majority of the negative effect's component makeup and we've all experienced the majority of death's component pieces. Massive change, separation, emotional damage, lack of preparation (I could go on).

I would put forward that it's the unknown and our experience with the negative side of facing the unknown without preparation that we fear (as well as quite possibly the painful transition). We can hardly fear the afterlife as we have no knowledge of it from which to infer fear.

It does not make 'more' sense - it has the same sense it always had, it is just that now you see it, whereas before you loudly declared what I said to be false. — Bartricks

No. It appeared you were saying something else, nothing more.

Seems you don't understand Epicurus either. — Bartricks

Seems I do, and you've created a strawman, for which I provided evidence. Good job.

Do you think that it is impossible for God to exist and for an evilly disposed person to exist? If so, why? Don't tell me God wouldn't create such a person, for I have not suggested he would. — Bartricks

No, I think from the perspective of some alive over 2000 years, the argument that evil exists as the result of a god rational enough to create the world, is an absurd claim to make when someone with only as much rationality as Epicurus, a human, could imagine a world without evil. Thereby rendering the nature of the world too irrational to have been created by a god. And he came to the right conclusion, there isn't a god.

I explicitly said that they weren't even philosophical points he was making, but therapeutic ones. But again, understanding is not strong with this one. — Bartricks

I don't care what you explicitly state in non-argument form. Your explicit statements are vapid on this subject. And yes, they were philosophical points, points you've pulled from no shown source, and the one that I verified the nature of was a complete strawman, which was the predicate of our entire interaction. YOu've explicitly done nothing but show the inferior nature of your philosophical capacities in relation to my own, as well as Epicurus.

No. I am. — Bartricks

Still trying to search for clues.

Well, there are kitchens in the Academy and burgers won't flip themselves. — Bartricks

Then get to flipping.

Anyway, you clearly don't a clue. You've just been watching too much Jordan Peterson or something. — Bartricks

Not an argument, and Peterson does care how much you desire to be him.

The rest was just silly. — Bartricks

This, I hope, concludes your failed attempts at argument. Now we can get on with celebrating the greatest thing to ever happen to philosophy. That being Epicurus, the topic of this thread.

The premise claims that to be [deleterious effect] by [thing] you must [experience pro/con effect] of [thing] but never mentions the axiomatic truth that nothing in the universe has ever been observed to be composed of a pure or base elment. — SkyLeach

This is not what any premise of his states. This is his argument right here:

Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us.

http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html line 2

This fucking quack above has wasted both our times on a strawman. Epicurus is saying the experience of death is nothing to us because once dead, experience is over, thus not a thing we experience, meaning nothing.

I would put forward that it's the unknown and our experience with the negative side of facing the unknown without preparation that we fear (as well as quite possibly the painful transition). — SkyLeach

Yep, which is specifically what Epicurus, of course, DID highlight:

“if we think about death correctly, we think about living a good life correctly, and vice versa”

Meaning, he believed that eliminating that fear requires living a good life, a happy life where one's pleasures are pursued to the fullest, in true friendship with other humans being respected in their conscious humanity to do the same alongside one another. That the longing for immortatility was itself a fear-trigger and should be dismissed in favor of earthly happiness. Not to mention, the guy was the first established atheist, which is crazy for someone from his time.

This is not what any premise of his states. This is his argument right here:

Death is nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has no feeling, and that which has no feeling is nothing to us. — Garrett Travers

... ...
... that's just a totally different epicurean quote vs. a paraphrase of Bartricks summary:

Here are Epicurus's arguments:

1. To be harmed by something you have to experience the harm
2. You can't experience your own death
3. Therefore, you can't be harmed by your own death — Bartricks

I confess, I can't summon the interest in reading E's writing directly. He's hard to read and his rationale is more shallow than my 9yo's.

My point was that his entire argument is both specious and subjective to an excessively biased portrayal of all humanity from his own personal perspective which itself is incredibly limited in understanding compared to ... say ... Aristotle's... let alone a modern educated man. At least Aristotle understood that wisdom required knowledge and started gathering data.

I haven't read deeply enough to say if E was an atheist or not, I only know he didn't believe in an afterlife and we already know that some very religious sects (like the Sadducees of Judaism) were theists but didn't believe in an afterlife. It's very rare for a greek not to believe in the gods, as you alluded to.

At any rate I wanted to encourage both you and Bartricks to stop taking things so personally. We are human and our emotions, once they get volitile, will prevent us from being objective and carefully considering the arguments in front of us.

If you can't, it's better to just end the discussion than to e-fight pointlessly.

. that's just a totally different epicurean quote vs. a paraphrase of Bartricks summary: — SkyLeach

No, it's entirely different langauge. Harm, as he's meaning, is not bad as Epicurus' mean

his rationale is more shallow than my 9yo's. — SkyLeach

His rational is the basis for modern science. It's where non-shallow comes from as a philosophical concept, instead of woo.

specious and subjective to an excessively biased portrayal of all humanity from his own personal perspective which itself is incredibly limited in understanding compared to ... say ... Aristotle's — SkyLeach

No, dude. Epicurus' influence across Greece was magnitudes greater than Aristotle's. The first attempt at Aristotl's framework being implemented, it ended in complete failure and Epicureanism exploded in thriving success that lasted 500 years.

I haven't read deeply enough to say if E was an atheist or not, I only know he didn't believe in an afterlife and we already know that some very religious sects (like the Sadducees of Judaism) were theists but didn't believe in an afterlife. It's very rare for a greek not to believe in the gods, as you alluded to. — SkyLeach

This is specifically why you're coming to the inaccurate conclusions above. Here's his principles, and a short history of his influence on the world, including you:

http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/Epicurus.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm

At any rate I wanted to encourage both you and Bartricks to stop taking things so personally. We are human and our emotions, once they get volitile, will prevent us from being objective and carefully considering the arguments in front of us. — SkyLeach

If you go back to the top of this discussion, you'll notice I told him to stop insulting me from the beginning, he never did. This is a one-side tantrum induced by his hatred of Epicurus for being a better philosopher than his heroes who plagiarised him. When he stops, it will stop.

Rather than quoting your entire comment I'm going to sum it up:

Thus far you've pointed out his school being influential and you've given him credit for science in a way that seems to completely pirate Aristotle's accomplishments using Alexander's gift of funding and royal edict. The trouble with all of that is... Aristotle did it first and was obviously a very clear and direct first-cause for Epicureanism.

I'm finding it really hard to see where he actually added anything substantial to what Aristotle taught. I'm not implying worthless contribution, far from it, merely that he's not the instigating and innovating source you claim but rather just a natural propagation and growth of what came before him.

Given that I haven't studied him and I have no intention of studying what he taught and wrote on my own please allow me to clearly state our impasse:

I don't want to know what some fatuous fanboy wrote (not you, your links). I don't want to read appaels to fame or appeals to authority... I want a quote or two.

Just something that will show me he actually said something profound that went far beyond Aristotle's claims that in order to understand the universe one had to measure and study it.

Otherwise I just don't have sufficient reason to put any time into investigating this. I'm curious, but it takes a very profound insight to get me to rearrange my insane learning schedule.

oh, and sorry for the messy writing. I'm all over the place today

Aristotle did it first and was obviously a very clear and direct first-cause for Epicureanism. — SkyLeach

Did what first? Aristotle is the father of logic. Epicurus is the one who instantiated empiricism, atomism, consciousness as the result of an organ in the body, and much else that predicated Enlightenment philosophy.

I'm finding it really hard to see where he actually added anything substantial to what Aristotle taught. I'm not implying worthless contribution, far from it, merely that as an intigation rather than a natural propagation and growth your argument seems lacking. — SkyLeach

That's because you aren't looking past epistemology as the only source of contribution, and your ignoring the fact that Aristotle, an inferio philosopher by all metrics, was a logician, not an Empiricist. But, where Epicurus truly contributed was in ethics.

Given that I haven't studied him and I have no intention of studying what he taught and wrote on my own please allow me to clearly state our impasse — SkyLeach

This is the impasse, you're not reading anything.

I don't want to know what some fatuous fanboy wrote (not you, your links). I don't want to read appaels to fame or appeals to authority... I want a quote or two. — SkyLeach

My links were to direct translations of Epicurus' writings, and an academic source on the history of the philosophy, dude. I gave you no appeals to authority of any kind. And there isn't any one quote that's going to give you any details that aren't right in the sources I gave you, it's Greek philosophy, not modern epsitemologies of a formal kind. You really will need to check out the sources.

Otherwise I just don't have sufficient reason to put any time into investigating this. I'm curious, but it takes a very profound insight to get me to rearrange my insane learning schedule. — SkyLeach

This isn't the place for you right now. Come back to Epicureanism when you have a few minutes.