Moore was envisioning a situation where the speaker (MacInstosh) doesn't know nor does he have any reason to believe that it's raining outside. — Pierre-Normand

Only in philosophy would someone think that there is anything to be gained from imagining that someone would say something that nobody would say in a situation which would not take place.

As G.E. Moore put it, “Why is it absurd for me to say something true about myself?” — Wheatley

Well, it's absurd for you to think it's not raining when it's raining. It's merely stupid for you to say you think it's not raining when it is. In the first case, you're an idiot. In the second case, you're telling people you're an idiot.

Not a curse. Accursed, perhaps.

Did he? A pity he never apologized for what he was, and what he did.

If you're writing a thesis in philosophy, I don't think you need have any concern about the fact that Heidegger was an unapologetic Nazi and a virulent anti-Semite, among other unpleasant things. In that rarefied realm such foibles are deemed insignificant.

(Note: I am mentioning Heidegger because I am reading his famous article on technology, which I find particularly flawed.) — David Mo

Yes. A dreadful little piece of romantic fluff.

So there was a time when the US was a "democracy"
and wasnt a plutocracy?! — Asif

I never said it was a democracy. It never could reasonably be deemed one in any case, as its Founders were careful to assure it would not be a democracy. As for the claim that every government in history has been a plutocracy, accepting it of course saves us the trouble of distinguishing one from another, and so it has the charming qualities of simplicity and ease.

I remember hearing about the study that showed that the US is an oligarchy. — Aleph Numbers

More a plutocracy, I think.

In the absence of an explanation for the significance of a belief in a deity, I will assume that it has to do with spirituality/transcendence. — praxis

Right, sorry. The Stoics believed that each of us shared in the pneuma, the generative principle which infuses the universe, which they likened to fire. We do so because we have the capacity to reason, and they thought that the Divine Reason enacts with the matter otherwise part of the universe and governs it. We live "in accordance with nature" as they liked to say when we use our reason, as our capacity to reason is what, by nature, is our special characteristic among living creatures.

It's by using our reason that we realize that the highest good is virtue. We're virtuous when, among other things, we don't harm one another, but it's also clear that it would be immoral to do so because each of us carries within ourselves a part of the divinity. The fact that we all share in the divine also means that we're brothers and sisters, equals in our essence, citizens of the world (or cosmos) as opposed to citizens of certain cities or places. Stoic ethics is essentially based on its physics, then, which had as a premise an immanent deity.

My feeling is that one of the maxims of Stoicism, that we should concern ourselves with what is in our control and not allow what is out of our control to disturb us or govern our conduct, serves to mitigate our desire for wealth, power, control or people and things, which in large part motivates misconduct and can encourage tranquility. We can certainly use that maxim as a guide without believing in the Stoic God, but it and other Stoic maxims were thought to result from the exercise of reason, which we have because we have in use a part of the divine.

Long story short, as they say.

Oh the self-righteousness of your pharisiacal and peevish response, your High and Mightiness!

Roman citizenship was extended to all free men in the Empire by the Emperor Caracalla (best known for his baths constructed in Rome) in 212 C.E., by the way. Fun fact.

You really think so? I believe that if the approach is correct, as in those who do not have the privilege ask to work together instead of demanding to strip the privilege of others, a lot could be accomplished — Alejandro

Consider the enormously rich. The so-called 1%. That presumably will include those with assets worth a billion U.S. dollars or more. According to Forbes, there are about 2100 of them. That presumably also includes those worth mere millions; perhaps that would make the percentage figure larger. I mean those that possess wealth far beyond what they or their families need to live very comfortable lives indeed.

With few exceptions, they show no sign of sharing their wealth voluntarily. Rather, they accumulate even more. They have so much more than they could reasonably need that I think it would be appropriate to consider them similar to gluttons and hoarders; people from whom little is to be expected but they will continue to accumulate and consume more and more resources and think themselves right to do so. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

I've only read Pigliucci so am curious how God fits into a Divine Stoicism. If I remember correctly, Pigliucci claims that it can coexist with just about any metaphysics, but that's coexisting and not being integral. — praxis

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has its basis in Stoic practical wisdom, as does Rational-Emotive Behavior Therapy (it's founder, Ellis, noted this in his writings). But for me, it's inappropriate to refer to it as Stoicism, as it merely borrows from it that practical wisdom which the Stoics derived from a system of beliefs regarding people and the cosmos which included, significantly, a belief in a deity. And it's clear that the proponents of these therapies never claimed to be Stoics.

Similarly, what Pigliucci and Becker and no doubt others call Stoicism isn't what was developed and propounded by ancient Greek and Roman Stoics over roughly 700 years. They and others like them might be considered "Cafeteria Stoics" in the same way as certain of those who call themselves Catholics are called "Cafeteria Catholics." Stoicism is enjoying, if that's the word, a kind of revival, but when we see it being recommended to entrepreneurs (not by P and B, but by others) to increase their effectiveness it's clear that Stoicism is being misinterpreted.

There certainly are similarities. It's interesting they both arose at around the same time.

The solution has to be within addressing inequity between groups and it has to be about groups recognising their group advantages. Even reading OP, you can see how he talks about groups as though they are living, thinking actors who can do things and have opinions on things. — Judaka

How refer to "groups" then? Or, perhaps, there are no groups, or the word "groups" cannot be used?

The role of discussions of privilege is not in deciding what can or should be done to change this state of affairs. It is in seeing one's position from the perspective of the other, and so recognising that there are changes that need to be made. — Banno

Give the nature of the beliefs of far too many here in our Glorious Union regarding their "rights" and the nature of "tyranny," I fear that intelligent discussion may no longer be possible, and that the last thing many Americans want to do is see anything from the perspective of anyone different from themselves in the slightest respect.

I'm not privileged as I see it, but I do recognize others are having their rights violated. It's not a privilege to be treated as an equal with dignity and respect. It's a right, which is precisely why we refer to them as civil rights and not civil privileges . — Hanover

Well said.

I'm not an expert on Stoicism, but I get the impression that traditional polytheists would have considered them Secular --- if not Atheists. — Gnomon

That could be, although it's my understanding that like other ancient philosophers who weren't polytheists, the Stoics tolerated and even honored certain traditional religious practices. So Plato, Socrates and others were initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries, Socrates before his death reminded Crito he owed a sacrifice to Asklepios (Latinized as Asclepius) and Cleanthes, successor to Zeno as head of the Stoa, addressed his famous hymn to Zeus.

Anyway, modern Stoics are not beholden to that ancient god concept. But I still like the metaphor of the universe as a living & growing & maturing organism. The only divine dictates of that kind of deity are what we now call "Natural Laws". We are obliged to respect & obey them (e.g Gravity), but not to worship & pray to the law-giver in order to obtain special favors and exceptions. :smile: — Gnomon

Yes. You might want to read Lawrence Becker's A New Stoicism as well as Pigliucci for modern, godless (as it were) Stoicism. For me, the traditional Stoic view of God is appealing, as I can easily think of the universe/nature as something to be revered.

The Stoics view of suicide is interesting. The felt that death is nothing to fear, that there's nothing "wrong" about death; it's merely a part of life, an "indifferent" which shouldn't disturb us. So, suicide wasn't a horror for them, nor was it a sin. Epictetus felt that it was improper if done for "childish" reasons, and generally the Stoics believed taking one's own life in, e.g., anger, or despair, or for unrequited love wasn't justified. However it was considered proper when one is unable to act virtuously. So, for example, certain Roman senators who were Stoics committed suicide when commanded by an emperor to do something unworthy and threatened with execution unless they complied with the command.

Not all forms (or many) look at suffering in aggregate, but more on the margins.. how it affects each individual (or how it would affect each individual). One person not born, is one person not suffering — schopenhauer1

I thought antinatalism takes the position that people should not reproduce, as anyone born will suffer. If that's not the case, and it instead takes the position that the decision to procreate should be made on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances in which the child would be born and its prospects, I think that would be quite reasonable.

I suppose I could request that "privilege" be defined, but would hate to seem pedantic preferring, as always, to seem ironical if not surpassingly wise.

Chances are someone will always be privileged if by that is meant "better off" than others. But I don't think that's a topic for serious discussion. What might be interesting to consider is the fact that there are certain folk who aren't merely better off than others, but remarkably better off than others, and are as a rule given preference, rights and benefits not granted others, especially by those in authority, for reasons unrelated to their merit, virtue, worthiness or any other reason which might arguably make them deserving of privilege.

I don't think any reasonable person can maintain that there are no such people, nor can I think of any reasonable basis for the claim that this is as it should be. I think it's very unlikely that those who are so privileged will use their privileged position to benefit others (beyond their friends and family) to any significant extent, though there may be some small number of them who will make an effort to do so.

For me, then, what should be addressed is the question--What can/should be done to change this state of affairs? It's not at all an easy question to answer, but should be addressed unless we're content to let it continue.

You might want to clarify that the Stoic deity was Pantheistic, and essentially what we now identify with secular Nature, complete with natural laws. — Gnomon

Whatever "secular nature" may be, I don't think it is essentially the Stoic deity. I doubt most of us today would consider nature to be infused with what the Stoics considered the generative, rational aspect of the universe, or its mind as it was sometimes called (also Divine Fire, or pneuma), which though material functioned as something like its soul. Nature, or the universe, isn't governed by natural law; what we might call natural law is the workings of the immanent Stoic deity. But to say their God is pantheistic is correct enough, I think, though some may maintain it's panentheistic. In any case, they avoided the problems I think are inherent in the belief in a transcendent God.

I have to wonder, though, just why Pigliucci claims that this idea of the universe, or of the universe as a "living organism" is not tenable given what we know of from modern science. What does he think a living organism must be? Something, presumably, that isn't the universe, but is nonetheless something that's a part of the universe necessarily, I would think, which we have encountered already. We haven't encountered much of the universe at all, though.

Interesting. Similar to Roman pietas it would seem, which could be construed to encompass all of those characteristics. A quality thought desirable in legions, e.g. Legio VII, Claudia Pia Fidelis, and Emperors too, e.g. Antoninus Pius.

What are religious moral values?

I like the fire. Very fitting.

"Traditional Christian moral values" owe much to Stoicism and other ancient philosophies; the belief that Christian moral values are unique is absurd. As practical wisdom, Stoicism may provide a "secular" code of ethics, but Stoicism's ethics had its basis in belief in an immanent deity, something that many of its modern proponents (including Pigliucci) prefer to ignore or note only in passing. So I think it's an error to think of Stoicism as secular, although it certainly isn't dependent on belief in a personal, supernatural God.

Could it be argued that extinction isn't only not unethical, but the only way to guarantee the removal of unethical practices? — JacobPhilosophy

Well, extinction will as surely guarantee there will be no ethical practices. Is the removal of ethical practices ethical? Does the removal of unethical practices outweigh the removal of ethical practices? There will be no ethics when we're extinct, no good or bad to be done.

But other creatures will still suffer. So, clearly, we can only guarantee the removal of unethical practices and suffering only by removal of all living creatures. Why is their suffering of less significance than ours? Not only must we refrain from procreation, we must stop other creatures from procreating as well. Those creatures that are currently living must be allowed to live, of course, but being unable to understand that reproduction is harmful, they will reproduce if not prevented from doing so. Now that I think of it, though, when we're extinct we won't be able to prevent other creatures from procreating and therefore causing suffering. Perhaps that renders our extinction unethical.

It's been a long time, but Hobbes if I recall correctly didn't maintain things ought to be governed by our selfish traits as it is being put, but merely that we are selfish and, therefore, government authority should be granted or structured accordingly. (I also recall more clearly the story that a particular student claimed that man himself in the state of nature was nasty, brutish and short--not that his life was).

So Hobbes as pessimist need not believe that we should be selfish, nor do I think a pessimist is bound to believe we should be selfish. It's quite possible for a pessimist to think we should be unselfish, but yet are not.

It happens that the Founding Fathers of our Great Republic were seeking to create a form of government in which citizens would be able to be as selfish as they please without restriction by government. That's why the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from exercising its power to prevent citizens from freely doing, thinking, and owning what they wished, except in certain circumstances. Were they optimists or pessimists in doing so? I'm uncertain, but they seemed concerned to assure that they be allowed to pursue their own self-interest.

I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I am thinking now. — Pantagruel

In fact, I'm the only one thinking now. I'm that demon Descartes was always going on about, and I'm pretending you're thinking, just as I pretended he was. Sorry.

Philosophical abstractions arise in in a context of the exercise of reasoning about something. — fdrake

Dewey's criticism seems to be of a surfeit of reasoning, though. Mere reasoning, divorced of context, is what he seems to feel is the error that pervades philosophy. Context seems to him to include unreasonable elements, non-cognitive elements, the understanding of which isn't subject to abstraction; or which abstraction disregards. Practical abstraction, practical reasoning, involves means and ends and arriving at a conclusion. Philosophical abstraction doesn't, presumably because of "neglect of context."

This obviously is merely one interpretation of Dewey's position. It's an interpretation which suggests that Dewey's criticism of philosophy is such that it renders philosophy as traditionally practiced not meaningless, and not useless (as philosophical abstraction may in some cases be useful) but ultimately misguided and unable to provide an understanding of the world.

Paging Dr. Mengele! Dr. Mengele, PF calling!

But I imagine (wrongly, perhaps) that economic models may still be useful if they are shown to apply accurately to a certain percentage or extent, based on statistics. That wouldn't be the case with philosophy or philosophical models, if there are such things.

Dewey's concern, I think, arises only when philosophers make 'categorical (especially self-subsuming) truth-claims' about matters of fact on the basis of abstractions alone (i.e. "pure reason") e.g. all truthes are relative ... nothing matters ... everything has consciousness ... — 180 Proof

Yes, I'd agree that's his primary concern. And I think philosophy remains useful, along the lines you note. But its role then becomes something very different from the role it's played for centuries. Does its role then become one of developing and employing a method of addressing and resolving what Dewey called "the problems of men" as opposed to "the problems of philosophy"?

Dewey also applied this principle to the means-end issue. Utilitarianism presumes that certain ends can be imposed on contexts, wherein means can then be selected arbitrarily (i.e. the ends justify the means). Dewey offers that, instead, we should always be prepared to "discover" new ends based on the discovery of new capabilities in contexts. — Pantagruel

Yes. Though "the philosophical fallacy" is more evident in metaphysics and epistemology, it occurs in ethics as well. Dewey's concern to avoid the ill effects of the fallacy has made him seem to be a relativist to those who think certitude is needed, but his commitment to the application of intelligent method to problems in context and intelligent judgment of the results of the method saves him from relativism.

So I imagine that it's an inescapable source of error in philosophy, but simply because it's an inescapable source of error everywhere - the world won't always behave in the ways I expect it to. — fdrake

Well, there's abstraction, and then there's abstraction. What we think in particular circumstances may involve abstraction, but we also in most cases do something as well--as a result of abstraction or as a part of it. We encounter a problem in life (a situation we wish to resolve for one reason or another, or end, or which we want to respond to in some sense we find satisfactory) we think about it and then do something which makes it better or worse or leaves the problem in status quo.

All too often, I think, philosophy involves abstraction regarding not what we actually encounter in life, which requires deliberation and action in context, and a result, which may or may not require additional deliberation and action--but mere abstraction where context is at most of nominal concern. There's abstraction in context (in interaction with others and our environment) and abstraction without context, I think.

Preferably with bacon.

Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs.

I'm rather fond of the Stoic conception of God. But I feel no more need to defend that conception in argument than I do to defend my enjoyment of Haydn's concerto for trumpet. Why do you react so strongly against atheism?

Some of his works are available to be read here:
http://www.peirce.org/writings.html

More are available here:
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/bycsp.HTM

A unique thinker who had his differences with other classical pragmatists, James in particular. Dewey he came to respect, eventually, in some respects at least.

When we look at all the different beliefs we can see Christianity is is a combination of beliefs including Egyptian and Persian religions and Hellenism. — Athena

Christianity was remarkable for it voracious assimilation of, and violent intolerance towards, the ancient pagan religions and philosophical traditions. Once its dominance was assured, of course, its view of pagan philosophy became less hostile.

Thanks for sharing your stories. — Frank Apisa

For me, it's a kind of nostalgia, largely associated with music, sound, colors, even smells. Listening to the Tantum Ergo being sung, the language--reciting the Credo and the Confiteor, the colors of the vestments, the smell of incense, the ringing of the bells during the Eucharist, the Gregorian Chant. An aesthetic nostalgia, so to speak. If you want you spectacle in your religion, it was hard to beat. I suspect the old pagan rituals were similar.

Then, of course, there's also Tom Lehrer's The Vatican Rag.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do