" it can be easily shown to be highly probable: like all existential statements, it is in an infinite (or sufficiently large) universe almost logically true,"
Isn't he just speculating on the multiverse theory that postulates an infinite number of copies of You exists. This can make the logical conclusion that a probable copy of You exist also? — ovdtogt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

Here you go, the text in question:

"In the text of this chapter I have drawn attention to the criterion of progress and of rationality based on the comparison of degrees of testability or degrees of the empirical content or explanatory power of
theories. I did so because these degrees have been little discussed so far.

I always thought that the comparison of these degrees leads to a criterion which is more important and more realistic than the simpler criterion of falsifiability which I proposed at the same time, and which has been widely discussed. But this simpler criterion is also needed. In order to show the need for the falsifiability or testability criterion as a criterion of the empirical character of scientific theories, I will discuss, as an example, a simple, purely existential statement which is formulated in purely empirical terms. I hope this example will also provide a reply to the often repeated criticism that it is perverse to exclude purely existential statements from empirical science and to classify them as metaphysical.

My example consists of the following purely existential theory:

'There exists a finite sequence of Latin elegiac couplets such that, if it is pronounced in an appropriate manner at a certain time and place, this is immediately followed by the appearance of the Devil--that is to say, of a man-like creature with two small horns and one cloven hoof.'

Clearly, this untestable theory is, in principle, verifiable. Though according to my criterion of demarcation it is excluded as non-empirical and nonscientific or, if you like, metaphysical, it is not so excluded by those positivists who consider all well-formed statements and especially all verifiable ones as empirical and scientific.

Some of my positivist friends have indeed assured me that they consider my existential statement about the Devil to be empirical. It is empirical though false, they said. And they indicated that I was mistaking false empirical statements for non-empirical ones.

However, I think that the confusion, if any, is not mine. I too believe that the existential statement is false: but I believe that it is a false metaphysical statement. And why, I ask, should anybody who takes it for empirical think that it is false? Empirically, it is irrefutable. No observation in the world can establish its falsity. There can be no empirical grounds for its falsity.

Moreover, it can be easily shown to be highly probable: like all existential statements, it is in an infinite (or sufficiently large) universe almost logically true, to use an expression of Carnap's. Thus, if we take it to be empirical, we have no reason to reject it, and every reason to accept it and to believe in it-especially upon a subjective theory of probable belief.

Probability theory tells us even more: it can be easily proved not only that empirical evidence can never refute an almost logically true existential statement, but that it can never reduce its probability. (Its probability could be reduced only by some information which is at least 'almost logically false', and therefore not by an observational evidence statement.) So the empirical probability or degree of empirical confirmation (in Carnap's sense) of our statement about the devil-summoning spell must for ever remain equal to unity, whatever the facts may be.

It would of course be easy enough for me to amend my criterion of demarcation so as to include such purely existential statements among the empirical statements. I merely should have to admit not only testable or falsifiable statements among the empirical ones, but also statements which may, in principle, be empirically 'verified'.

But I believe that it is better not to amend my original falsifiability criterion. For our example shows that, if we do not wish to accept my existential statement about the spell that summons the devil, we must deny its empirical character (notwithstanding the fact that it can easily be formalized in any model language sufficient for the expression of even the most primitive scientific assertions). By denying the empirical character of my existential statement, I make it possible to reject it on grounds other than observational evidence. (See chapter 8, section 2, for a discussion of such grounds.)

This shows that it is preferable, as I have been trying to make clear for some considerable time, not to assume uncritically that the terms 'empirical' and 'well-formed' (or 'meaningful') must coincide--and that the situation is hardly improved if we assume, uncritically, that probability or probabilistic 'confirmability' may be used as a criterion of the empirical character of statements or theories. For a non-empirical and presumably false statement may have a high degree of probability, as has been shown here."

P. 248 - 250 of "Conjectures and Refutations" ("Appendix: A presumably false yet formally
highly probable non-empirical statement").

Again, relevance?

I said that philosophy is the project of using reason to discover the truth.

You then provide a quote that makes a different point - a point about the attitudes of truth-seekers.

You then tell me that the author of the quote was a sceptic.

I do not understand the relevance of either the quote or scepticism, but as you also asked whether I considered scepticism a philosophy, I said something about it - namely that, as I understand 'scepticism', it is, or can be a philosophy if the sceptic believes their position is supported by reason.

You then tell me that I have not understood scepticism.

So I asked what you understood the term to mean.

Rather than answering, you give me a potted history of scepticism - without telling me what you actually understand the term to mean.

Anyway, this is pointless as you're not addressing anything I've actually said or the OP. This thread is about Stoicism, not scepticism. — Bartricks

You asked me what I think scepticism to be. Well, I understand scepticism through the words of actual sceptics. As for stoicism? You don't understand that either apparently. I dealt with that one by actually quoting stoics since that's what we are talking about, not some halfwitted understanding someone cooked up during lunchbreak.

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks

"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996) — Ying

Pyschology, not philosophy. — Bartricks

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy. — Ying

What do you understand by scepticism? Does a sceptic defend their scepticism using reason, or do they just assert it? If the former, then there are sceptical philosophers (and - for the record - I believe there most certainly are philosopher sceptics). Normally sceptics are sceptics about a particular domain, not about everything. But I accept that there can be philosophical sceptics about everything, I just believe their position is incoherent. Note, in claiming that their position is incoherent, I am not denying that it is a philosophy. — Bartricks

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong.

"Scepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgements in any way whatsoever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons thus opposed, we are brought firstly to a state of mental suspense and next to a state of "unperturbedness" or quietude. Now we call it an "ability" not in any subtle sense, but simply in respect of its "being able.""
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 4. — Ying

I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.

Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks

Fine. Scepticism is the school of thought founded by Pyrrho of Elis. The generally accepted narrative claims that he was influenced by his encounters with the magi and gymnosophists whom he met during his travels with Alexander the Great. Most folks tend to forget that he also traveled with Anaxarchus of Abdera, a student of Diogenes of Smyrna. Diogenes was a student of Metrodorus of Chios, who studied under Democritus of Abdera (the atomism guy. He also was really happy, advocating "Euesto" and "Euthymia" as ways of life). Anyway, Metrodorus might have been a proto sceptic, and I find it hard to believe that Anaxarchus never talked to Pyrrho about his philosophical pedigree (I wasn't there though, so I don't actually know that. I'll just postpone judgement about that one then). Anyway, you know about Platos Academy right? Well, there was a period where the place was run by sceptics, the most prominent being Carneades and Arcesilaus. The main source on classical scepticism is Sextus Empiricus though, who wrote his works centuries later. Pyrrho's brand of scepticism is called "pyrrhonic scepticism", Carneades and Arcesilaus represent academic scepticism. Sextus Empiricus was a proponent of pyrrhonic scepticism. Both schools advocate the suspension of judgement, but the academics conceded that certain issues could be more (or less) plausible than others. Pyrrhonics just postpone judgement on "non evident matters" to attain "unperturbedness" or "ataraxia" and don't bother with the plausibility of non-evident claims. — Ying

The point? Well, you stated that you take philosophy to be an inquiry into what's true. I decided to offer a counter point with the quote I provided. We then went off on a tangent about scepticism in general. I'll concede that our little side discussion after the initial salvo wasn't particularly relevant to the main issue though. :)

Booooooo!!!!! :lol:

Why? Shouldn't the most informed person decide? — Bartricks

OK fine. You're wrong. There. Happy?

And you've just said - and demonstrated - that you do not know much philosophy.

No, I stated that I really don't know that much about "philoosphy". Never said that I don't know much about philosophy. Subtle difference.

I didn't offer one - I asked you what you understood it to mean. I know how I use the term, but I haven't a clue how you do.

Why do you keep quoting Sextus at me? Just say what you mean. — Bartricks

Fine. Scepticism is the school of thought founded by Pyrrho of Elis. The generally accepted narrative claims that he was influenced by his encounters with the magi and gymnosophists whom he met during his travels with Alexander the Great. Most folks tend to forget that he also traveled with Anaxarchus of Abdera, a student of Diogenes of Smyrna. Diogenes was a student of Metrodorus of Chios, who studied under Democritus of Abdera (the atomism guy. He also was really happy, advocating "Euesto" and "Euthymia" as ways of life). Anyway, Metrodorus might have been a proto sceptic, and I find it hard to believe that Anaxarchus never talked to Pyrrho about his philosophical pedigree (I wasn't there though, so I don't actually know that. I'll just postpone judgement about that one then). Anyway, you know about Platos Academy right? Well, there was a period where the place was run by sceptics, the most prominent being Carneades and Arcesilaus. The main source on classical scepticism is Sextus Empiricus though, who wrote his works centuries later. Pyrrho's brand of scepticism is called "pyrrhonic scepticism", Carneades and Arcesilaus represent academic scepticism. Sextus Empiricus was a proponent of pyrrhonic scepticism. Both schools advocate the suspension of judgement, but the academics conceded that certain issues could be more (or less) plausible than others. Pyrrhonics just postpone judgement on "non evident matters" to attain "unperturbedness" or "ataraxia" and don't bother with the plausibility of non-evident claims.

That's homework and you know already that I don't do my homework - I thought you were going to take me to school? Teach me - tell me what you understand that gnomic quote to mean.

Are we reenacting this SNL skit but with philosophy instead of drugs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeTCTARJZm8&feature=youtu.be&t=46

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that all wrongdoing is a product of ignorance, was I attacking a straw man?

Basically, yeah.

When I attributed to the Stoics the view that grief is irrational, was I attacking a straw man?

Yeah, lots of straw there too.

I think you don't know what you're talking about

Well, to be fair, I really don't know that much about "philoosphy"...

and you're about to go off in a huff any. second. now.

I'm about to go, yeah.

No, not done at all. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

There are at least three parties in a public discussion. At least 2 interlocutors and the audience. I'll let them decide on this one.

Didn't you say:

"So, I submit that Stoicism is either the label for a therapy and not a philoosphy..."

Oh wait. No, you're right. You where implying it wasn't a "philoosphy". OK, my bad.

The relevance of me stating that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic? Oh your accusation that his definition of philosophy is some sort of "psychology" as opposed to philosophy. I was guessing you missed the part where he wasn't a stoic.

Also, you got your definition of classical scepticism wrong.

"Scepticism is an ability, or mental attitude, which opposes appearances to judgements in any way whatsoever, with the result that, owing to the equipollence of the objects and reasons thus opposed, we are brought firstly to a state of mental suspense and next to a state of "unperturbedness" or quietude. Now we call it an "ability" not in any subtle sense, but simply in respect of its "being able.""
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 4.

First, I never claimed that Stoicism was not a philosophy. — Bartricks

Yes you did. :p

Pyschology, not philosophy.

You do realize that Sextus Empiricus was a sceptic, right? Oh, let me guess. Scepticism also isn't a philosophy.

How? If they have a case, then they're appealing to Reason. If they don't, who cares - they're just asserting things.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0258%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D2

As to these three parts - what do you understand them to be or mean?

You can read about those in the "Outlines of Pyrrhonism". Sextus Empiricus is rather thorough in his attacks on stoicism.

Anyway, stop quoting others and put some skin in the game:

No. Actually checking what the stoics said might just be relevant to the discussion. Prevents the whole "straw man" nonsense.

what do you think philosophy is, if not the use of reason to discover the truth?

-A tradition beginning with Thales of Milete in the west, "Vedas" in India and the "I Ching" in China.
-A "love of wisdom". Cliche definition, sure. I blame Pythagoras of Samos for that one.
-An umbrella term, like "science", which encompasses various sub disciplines like epistemology, ontology, ethics, aesthetics, etc.

I mean, would you accept that someone who just describes a world view - who just insists there's a choir of gods above us and that we all have overwhelming reason to give him 10% of our income - and insists it is true without providing any of his claims with reasoned support is not a philosopher?

I would.

And how does this person differ from a true philosopher?

Depends. Are we talking about Scotsmen?

Why a dismissive 'ok'?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because the stoics also claim "reason" to be their main guiding tool? Didn't I post a quote about that earlier?

What do you use to find out what's true then, eh?

The internet. Obviously.

Take me to school then.

Done.

Ban Baden. He's too hypermasculine. :razz:

LOL, this thread.

I take philosophy to be inquiry into what's true — Bartricks

"When people search for something, the likely outcome is that either they find it or, not finding it, they accept that it cannot be found, or they continue to search. So also in the case of what is sought in philosophy, I think, some people have claimed to have found the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, and others are still searching. Those who think that they have found it are the Dogmatists, properly so called-for example, the followers of Aristotle and Epicurus, the Stoics, and certain others. The followers of Cleitomachus and Carneades, as well as other Academics, have asserted that it cannot be apprehended. The Skeptics continue to search. Hence it is with reason
that the main types of philosophy are thought to be three in number: the Dogmatic, the Academic, and the Skeptic."
--Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 1 (Translated by Benson Mates, Oxford University Press, New York Oxford 1996)

and its method to be reasoned argument.

I believe some cynics would disagree with that one.

So, if all that can be said about a stoic worldview is that it has therapeutic benefits, then it is not a worldview that should interest a true philosopher. A true philosophy wants to know what's true and hang the consequences.

"Now the Stoics and some others say that there are three parts of philosophy, namely, the logical, the physical, and the ethical; and they begin their instruction with the logical part, even though there has been much dispute about the proper place to begin."
-Ibid. book 2, ch. 2

So. Apparently there's more to the stoic view besides "therapeutic benefits".

Even if it is more specific - that is, if it involves the cultivation of particular character traits - then these character traits will either be ones we have independent reason to think are character traits we ought to cultivate, or they will not be. If the former, then the view remains banal - for it is saying no more than that it is good to cultivate good character traits. If the latter, then it is most likely false. For if the character traits are ones that we seem to have moral reason not to cultivate - that is, if Stoicism makes prescriptions that seem to fly in the face of Reason's prescriptions - then it is most likely false, for it is what Reason says that is the philosopher's touchstone, not what some theory says.

Ah, reason! OK.

"Those who rate pleasure as the supreme ideal hold that the Good is a matter of the senses; but we Stoics maintain that it is a matter of the understanding, and we assign it to the mind. If the senses were to pass judgment on what is good, we should never reject any pleasure; for there is no pleasure that does not attract, no pleasure that does not please. Conversely, we should undergo no pain voluntarily; for there is no pain that does not clash with the senses. Besides, those who are too fond of pleasure and those who fear pain to the greatest degree would in that case not deserve reproof. But we condemn men who are slaves to their appetites and their lusts, and we scorn men who, through fear of pain, will dare no manly deed. But what wrong could such men be committing if they looked merely to the senses as arbiters of good and evil? For it is to the senses that you and yours have entrusted the test of things to be sought and things to be avoided!

Reason, however, is surely the governing element in such a matter as this; as reason has made the decision concerning the happy life, and concerning virtue and honour also, so she has made the decision with regard to good and evil. For with them the vilest part is allowed to give sentence about the better, so that the senses – dense as they are, and dull, and even more sluggish in man than in the other animals, – pass judgment on the Good."
-Seneca the Younger, "Moral Letters to Lucilius", letter 124
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_124

As an example of the latter, take the view - often associated with Stoicism - that it is irrational to feel grief for those who have died.

"I am grieved to hear that your friend Flaccus is dead, but I would not have you sorrow more than is fitting. That you should not mourn at all I shall hardly dare to insist; and yet I know that it is the better way. But what man will ever be so blessed with that ideal steadfastness of soul, unless he has already risen far above the reach of Fortune? Even such a man will be stung by an event like this, but it will be only a sting. We, however, may be forgiven for bursting into tears, if only our tears have not flowed to excess, and if we have checked them by our own efforts. Let not the eyes be dry when we have lost a friend, nor let them overflow. We may weep, but we must not wail."
-Ibid. letter 63
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_63

(he also writes about the topic in his "Ad Marciam, De consolatione". He advises the same course of action there)

In this way, then, it seems to me that Stoicism is going either to be banal, or false, or not really a philosophy at all.

It seems to me you didn't do your homework on the stoics. I'll just stick with the attack on stoicism by Sextus Empiricus. Much more thorough even though he didn't claim that stoicism wasn't a philosophy... That's just weird. I mean, Zeno of Citium (founder of stoicism) was a student of Crates of Thebes, who was a student of Diogenes of Sinope. And its claimed that Diogenes was a student of Antisthenes who was a student of Socrates. As in, the guy featured as the main character in Plato's dialogues. Hard to deny that stoicism actually was a part of the tradition with such a pedigree.

I'm self-taught. My main areas of interest are hellenistic philosophy (mostly scepticism. cynicism and stoicism), philosophy of science, daoism and certain folks with a connection to the school of Brentano.

Nassim Taleb - "The Black Swan"
Herbert Marcuse - "One Dimensional Man"
Umberto Eco - "Kant and the Platypus"
Sextus Empiricus - "Against the Logicians"

I would like to ask, therefore, what other philosophies incorporate the concept of human suffering, as originating from desire? — Wallows

"Desires are harmful to both body and mind, as Ji Kang emphasizes in “On Nourishing Life.” Purity of being, in contrast, entails the absence of desire or any form of emotional disturbance. Are all desires, then, unnatural? The essay drew a sharp response from Xiang Xiu, for whom desire arises naturally from the heart-mind. As such, it cannot be eradicated but only regulated by rules of propriety and ritual action. In reply, Ji Kang points out that although pleasure and anger, and the desire for fame and beauty may stem from the self, like a tumor they only serve to deplete one's qi-energy. Basic needs are of course not to be denied, but desires are shaped by objects and reflect cognitive distortions that consume the self. To quench one's thirst, one does not desire to drink the whole river. This is fundamentally different from the desire for power and wealth, which knows no rest. Further, the suppression of desire by artificial means may remove certain symptoms, but it does not cure the disease. It is only by recognizing the harmful influences of desire that one begins to seek calmness and emptiness of mind. Ultimately, nourishing life is not just about health and longevity but sets its sight on a higher, and to Ji Kang, more authentic, mode of being characterized by dispassion."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/supplement.html

I welcome any and all thoughts and discussion on the topic. — GigoloJoe

Wait, this thread isn't about the regress problem? I'm disappointed (not really). Anyway, carry on. :blush:

His argument is refuted by refuting his weakness and childish outlook. — DingoJones

Look, I have no bone to pick in this discussion since I don't care either way, but that's a textbook ad hominem fallacy. Nice going, there.

but if we're not supposed to have any over the top dreams, — Rhasta1

I didn't state you shouldn't. I don't think I stated anything of a prescriptive nature in my previous post.

ones that despite being unrealistic, shed some light on our gloomy existence,

Our gloomy existence? My existence isn't all that gloomy.

then how are we ought to escape our problems?

You're more likely to change your situation by acting as opposed to dreaming. Just sayin'...

Who's to say? They can be harmful if you're overly attached to those dreams, but the same can be said about many things. Those dreams certainly can function as a lodestar, something to work towards, but they also can set you up for bitter disappointment. Realizing such dreams isn't going to be a free ride though, unless you get really lucky or something. Anyway, my two cents. :)

Why the Greeks? — Jacob-B

It's not so much a question of "why the Greeks", as it is a question of "why the Athenians", in my opinion. Yes, I know that the Milesian school, the pythagoreans and the Eleatics (to name a few) precede the Athenian period, but the sustained interest in philosophy certainly had Athens as a center. The reason Athens was such a center of philosophical activity seems to stem from the link to the goddess Athena, who was regarded as the patron of philosophy. As such, philosophy and philosophers in general held a special place within Athenian society.

I took a try at the I Ching some time ago. Among the first things I did was check different translations (into English), noting the considerable differences between them. I'll throw this out as a proposition. If true. then it speaks for itself. If false, then would the person making that argument provide at least one - two would be nice - counter-examples?

Proposition: the I Ching has no determinate meaning, or even determinate set of meanings. In short, it means whatever persuasive interpreters can persuade people to think it means. Or in other terms, in itself it means nothing. — tim wood

Oh look someone is trying to shift the burden of proof. Good luck with that.

Thanks for that, interesting links that I need to spend some time with, and a very useful cosmology. — unenlightened

Heh, no problem. :wink:

I have lived with this in the background as I have lived with a Christian cosmology in the background, along with scientific materialist, and so on. So I am always wanting if not a reconciliation, at least a translation, an understanding of one in terms of the other. What I am trying to do is to get some idea of the status of the various elements in relation to the philosophical language more familiar here. There seems to be an affinity with Pythagorean ideas of cosmic vibration and so on, and also with Platonic forms, but without the separation of ideal from the tangible.

The philosophy in the "I Ching" seems to have a very odd way of looking at human life, in the sense that it seems to claim that all individual situations we experience can be equated to one of the 64 base situations outlined in the text. These base situations also have multiple permutations as outlined by the moving lines (not just the base six moving lines, but any combination thereof). As such, it seems to claim that the situations we experience in life aren't as unbounded in scope as they may seem to us. It also seems to claim that individual lives aren't all that different in their base experiences, only that those base experiences are configured differently according to our place in the world and according to our personal morals (?). I know of no other system, philosophical or otherwise, which looks at human life (lives?) in such a particular way. I'm also not all that sure what to make of it (as an overarching view on life), even though I've been studying the thing for over a decade now. My study of the "I Ching" mainly focuses on what it means to be a "junzi", or even a "sheng", that is, a "superior person" and a "sage" respectively. I certainly don't claim to be either, but I do respect the ideals held within those conceptions of what it means to be a "virtuous man". I tend to not focus so much on the larger metaphysical issues I outlined earlier in this post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junzi

Something new to me already is the sense that 'the ten thousand things' are no more 'things' in the materialist sense than yin and yang are things, but just a further iteration of the possibilities of process, such that one might, if anyone had the stamina and insight, elaborate each of them in turn with its own name, description, and commentary.

Yeah, not me :razz:

There is something I am trying to articulate, and failing to, about the way the fundamental division permeates reality that is very different from the hierarchies of Western dichotomies. It is as if, as well as computer programs being composed of 0s and 1s, every program and every sub-routine is in some significant sense 1-ish or 0-ish.

Are you familiar with the work of Mitchell Feigenbaum? I'm certainly no expert on chaos theory (the math is way over my head for me to even read up about the actual intricacies but I do find the field fascinating on a superficial conceptual level) but it seems like you're alluding to some of the stuff he was working on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Feigenbaum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feigenbaum_constants#History

I must start by saying that my qualifications and authority on this topic amount to as near absolute zero as can be measured. — unenlightened

I'm fairly knowledgeable about the "I Ching"... :)

The I Ching is possibly over 5,000 years old. Makes Plato look recent.

The origination of the "I Ching" is generally attributed to Fuxi, a mythical figure from the dawn of Chinese civilization. The arrangement of the hexagrams into the specific sequence we know of is attributed to King Wen, and is called the "King Wen sequence". The duke of Zhou wrote the commentaries on the lines, and what's known as the "Wings" is attributed to Confucius. I think it's more fair to state that the "I Ching" we know of was an ongoing project, rather than a singular act of creation by some specific individual.

Ok, I have rambled, I have linked, and if I have made a new connection for you somewhere, well tell me something interesting!

OK, sure. :)

The "I Ching" operates within a rather specific cosmology:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiji_(philosophy)

Most, if not all of classical Chinese philosophy operates within said cosmology and employs the terminology of the "I Ching". Another key text in understanding classical Chinese philosophy is the "Shang Shu" (much more boring to read than the "I Ching" in my opinion. You also don't get to play the oracle game with that text). Note that Heaven (Ch'ien) is represented by the singular unbroken line under the yin/yang symbol in the diagram I posted earlier. Earth (K'un) is represented by the broken line next to it. The emptiness spoken of in daoism doesn't really pertain to what's written in the "I Ching", even though the text does hold a central place in daoist thinking (both philosophical and religious). Daoist thinking is more closely linked to the concept of Wuji in that regard.

A great text in understanding the philosophy behind the "I Ching" is called the "Ta Chuan", or "great appendix". It outlines the actual usage of the "I Ching", beyond a mere oracle book. It explains how the "I Ching" can be used to find the way of least resistance in life, to learn how to act in accordance with the will of Heaven and not act in opposition to this, so to speak:

"With the attainment of such ease and such freedom of laborious effort, the mastery is got of all principles under the sky. With the attainment of that mastery, the sage finds his position in the middle between heaven and earth."
-"Ta Chuan" section 1, ch. 1, paragraph 8.

Some, links:
http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/i-ching-connexion/appendices/298-ta-chuan-section-1?showall=1
http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/i-ching-connexion/appendices/299-ta-chuan-section-2?showall=1

Yeah, multiple times. I went to a protestant school as a kid, and during that time I went on a trip to Hong Kong. Got familiar with Chinese folk religion with a buddhist flavor, and got interested in that for a while. Later on, I tried doing the Hindu thing, but that wasn't for me. Nowadays I'm all about scepticism, as in, postponing judgement about all kinds of issues, including religion. This makes it sound like I just discovered scepticism or something, but I've been doing that for well over a decade now.

Ying weeds and hardcore plants´ role in Nature is to pave the way for more delicate, but longer lasting, plants. They practice "terraforming" in badlands and abandoned urban areas. The same function is played by fast-reproducing-cheap-to-feed animals such as cockroaches or rats; they turn waste into edible food for other animals. Nature is so amazing, so well designed! — DiegoT

Pioneer species? Yeah I know. :)

Here's the Stoic in me saying "no." — Wallows

Fair enough.

Can you explain how does his biography relate to his well known philosophical pessimism? — Wallows

You don't think someones experiences shape their outlook? Well, whatever. You can read a condensed version on the Stanford Encyclopedia anyway. I'm just noting it's a good read.

I would like to ask if any members recommend a particular companion to use for it and if anyone is interested in participating and leading this reading group. — Wallows

Not exactly a companion, but the Schopenhauer biography by Rudiger Safranski is a good read imho.

I agree. There's no need for us to become judgemental Kants. — John Doe

:grin:

I'm probably more like how Ariston described Arcesilaus (ch. 33, book 1 of the "Outlines"):

"And this was why Ariston described him as "Plato the head of him, Pyrrho the tail, in the midst Diodorus"; because he employed the dialectic of Diodorus, although he was actually a Platonist."

... Only with different folks. So:

Brentano the head of me, Sextus Empiricus the tail, in the midst Cicero and Quintilian. Well, as far as western philosophy is concerned. With eastern philosophy, it's mostly neo-daoism.

Yeah but are you a real skeptic? I'm skeptical. — John Doe

Maybe, maybe not. I suggest postponing judgement on the matter.

I have come to the conclusion that we should all be skeptics. — Kranky

I already am. Now what?

Ying, why do you think women are less interested in Philosophy than men? — DiegoT

Ask someone else. I don't care.

And what is different in women who are actually interested?

See my previous answer.

Is it a natural-cultural sexual difference we should not tamper with, or just a misunderstanding?

Hmmmm. Let's see. I don't care.

that attitude won´t get you laid Ying. Women want men with an important ego, because male ego evolved to help women to keep in check their sea of feelings and emotions, that is sometimes very treacherous. In return, they create a sentimental shelter where this ego can heal its wounds and get ready for the fight again.

Try talking about your favourite philosopher and why your beard is more important than his. I promise you that it will work a lot better than "I'm an anonymous subject of perception. With a beard and moustache" as a chat-up line — DiegoT

That's actually from the "Phenomenology of Perception" by Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Minus the beard and moustache. That's how he describes consciousness experiencing itself. As for your notion of female psychology, yeah, keep it. Doesn't look particularly appealing to me.

Here's a list of the lecture series I own. Most are by the Teaching Company and the Modern Scholar.

On Biology:

Basics Of Genetics
Biological Anthropology - An Evolutionary Perspective
Biology and Human Behavior - The Neurological Origins of Individuality
Ecological Planet - An Introduction to Earth’s Major Ecosystems
Origins of Life
Search for Intelligent Life in Space
Major Transitions in Evolution
The Neuroscience of Everyday Life
Understanding Genetics - DNA, Genes, and Their Real-World Applications
Unseen Diversity - The World of Bacteria

On Health:

Lifelong Health—Achieving Optimum Well-Being At Any Age
Nutrition Made Clear
The Myths Of Nutrition And Fitness
Optimizing the Brain
Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

On History:

African Experience from Lucy to Mandela
Bard of the Middle Ages - The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer
Big History - The Big Bang, Life on Earth, and the Rise of Humanity
Comedy Through the Ages
Doctors - The History of Scientific Medicine Revealed Through Biography
Empire of Gold, A History of the Byzantine Empire, Madden
From Yao to Mao - 5000 Years of Chinese History
Historical Jesus
History of Ancient Egypt
History of Ancient Greece
Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations
Icons of the Iron Age - The Celts in History and Archaeology
Jouneys of the Great Explorers - From Columbus to Cook
Liberty and Its Price - Understanding the French Revolution
Medieval World
Middle Ages, High
Middle Ages, Early
Middle Ages, Late
Myth In Human History
Myths and Mysteries in Archaeology
Rise Of Humans Great Scientific Debates
Fall Of The Pagans And The Origins Of Medieval Christianity
Espionage And Covert Operations A Global History
The Medieval World I - Kingdoms, Empires, and War
The Medieval World II - Society, Economy, and Culture
History Of Native America
A Brief History of the World
The Vikings
Lost Worlds of South America
War and World History
Wars That Made the Western World
World of Byzantium

On Language and Argumentation:

Argumentation - The Study of Effective Reasoning
Communication Matters I
Effective Communication Skills
History of the English Language
How We Learn
Rings, Swords, and Monsters - Exploring Fantasy Literature
Strategic Thinking Skills
Understanding Linguistics - The Science of Language
Your Deceptive Mind - A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking Skills
Analysis and Critique - How to Engage and Write about Anything
Way With Words - Writing, Rhetoric, and the Art of Persuasion
Way with Words II - Approaches to Literature
Way With Words III - Understanding Grammar
Way With Words IV - Understanding Poetry
Writing Great Fiction
Writing Creative Nonfiction

On Philosophy:

Buddhism
Great Ideas of Philosophy
Machiavelli In Context
No Excuses Existentialism and the Meaning of Life
Practical Philosophy - Greco-Roman Moralists
Science Wars - What Scientists Know and How They Know It
Self Under Siege - Philosophy in the 20th Century
Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition
The Art of War
Voltaire and the Triumph of Enlightenment

On Physics:

Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution
Particle Physics For Non Physicists
Quantum Mechanics The Physics of the Microscopic World
Chaos
Superstring Theory - The DNA of Reality
Understanding the Universe - An Introduction to Astronomy
Understanding Complexity

On Psychology:

Great Ideas of Psychology
Is Anyone Really Normal - Perspectives On Abnormal Psychology
Memory And The Human Lifespan
Psychology of Human Behavior
Sensation, Perception, and the Aging Process
The Developing Adult - Biological and Psychosocial Perspectives
Theories Of Human Development