Not sure what you think of John Dewey. I'm rather fond of him. Another philosopher (Joseph Margolis) asked him to read some of Heidi's work. He did, and reportedly said "Heidegger reads like a Swabian peasant trying to sound like me."

Heidegger presents many interesting insights, but of course they won't be interesting if you are not interested. What could be more obvious than that? If you are not interested in the kinds of things he has to say, then why trouble yourself thinking about him at all? — Janus

His insights on Hitler and National Socialism are indeed very interesting, and very clearly stated. There's no need to decipher what he wrote about them, I must admit.

Our dear Einstein labored in passion in coffee shops, scribbling in note books ad nauseum to develop a theory that seemed to make sense, but science doesn't play with "seem," neither does philosophy. — Garrett Travers

"Albert Einstein was a lady's man
While he was working on his universal plan
He was making out like Charlie Sheen
He was a genius."
--Warren Zevon

Sorry. I just like Zevon, and couldn't help but think of these lines. Couldn't help but type them as well, it seems.

As specifically relates to H, "resolute" (i.e. subjectivist aka "ownmost") "being-towards-death" makes for "authentic Dasein", reminiscent of soldiering (kamikazi-like), that resonates with a Kierkegaardian "knight of faith" fervor rationalized by the theodicy of death at the drum-beating heart of H's SuZ. "Authenticity" – purportedly the highest subjectivist (and historicist) goal – is the hymn of this Absolute (which for H's Dasein is (my) "death") invoked as en-chanting (i.e. "jargoning" Adorno suggests) in lieu of, or over above, public reasoning. :eyes: — 180 Proof

— Ciceronianus

I've been told more than once on this forum when complaining of Heidegger's mysterious pontificating that it's my fault I can't understand him. I would, if I just read enough or really tried to do so in some fashion--I think someone even said I must read the work of all phenomenologists in order to grasp what point. I like to think of this as deciphering the "Heidegger Code."

I'm sure there may be many interesting implications from these works. I'm just wondering if they make any difference to how we live our lives on a day to day basis (which seems, to me, to involve reality).

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3quhly

Batman's right.

Since when do philosophers wait for more facts before they start "speculating"? — Gnomon

Alas, all too often they disregard facts entirely, except perhaps when they face them in day-to-day life and have no option but to acknowledge them by their conduct, at least.

Besides, the authors of the books referenced are pragmatic scientists, who were forced by the counter-intuitive "facts" they dug-up to speculate on what they might mean for our intuitive worldview and our incomplete "standard theory" of reality. — Gnomon

I regret I haven't read the works you refer to, but just what is that supposed to mean? What is it about what they've dug up that would throw our lives into disarray, make any difference to what we do or how or why we do it, lead us to doubt in any practical sense the world of which we're a part and which we and other humans have interacted with, every moment, all our lives? Will we suddenly encounter cats that are both dead and alive, once we know what they've discovered?

Or are they pointing to a universal intrinsic, perhaps immaterial, essence of Reality, more fundamental than sub-atomic particles? — Gnomon

I think there's a lot more to learn about this before we start speculating about "non-physical reality." What takes place at the quantum level isn't necessarily the "reality" we live in anyway.

If violations of the Human Consciousness are occuring within our purview, then perhaps such action is on the table, but the acknowledgement of such an obligation would need to uniformly consensual, and rationally planned to the absolute best of our ability. — Garrett Travers

If everyone would live an Epicurean (or Stoic, I would say) life most if not all our problems would be resolved. But most of us won't. That we should be free to live such a life is clear; that others (not just the government, but other people) should be free to prevent us from living such a life by living however they see fit isn't at all clear, to me. Legal rights which protect our freedom, and ability, to live a tranquil, wise, virtuous life are desirable. Legal rights which allow others to restrict that freedom, or limit or extinguish our ability to live that life, are not.

It's a conundrum I struggle with more and more in these dark times.

I'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case. So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power.

I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others. I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness.

If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility, though--if in other words the goal of government is to facilitate people in following Epicurus' teachings--we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals. In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans. That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens.

You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights.

Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function, — Garrett Travers

The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights. The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think. The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility. "Rights" were in large part a fiction (when not sanctioned by law) indulged in during the Enlightenment and since that time.

I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society.

My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence.

I have very little quarrel with Epicureanism generally, though I prefer Stoicism, and think I agree with you on the terrible consequences of the suppression of pagan philosophy and religion commencing with the reign of Constantine, but would think the increasing focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe.

Is Romanticism the cause of world wars and dreams of Utopia leading to mass murder and tyranny? — Athena

Yes. Yes it is.

Well, it may not be the only cause of such things. It's one of the causes.

I know that terrible things happened before Romanticism raised its self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head, but assume we refer to what took place after it did so. Unfortunately, it arose at a time when we had at our disposal tools by which we could be enormously more destructive than we had been in the past. So, as it encouraged us to indulge the more grotesque of our whims, dreams and desires, we had the means to inflict the harm caused by that indulgence on more people and did just that, extravagantly (of course).

1. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy et all (serial killers) were all sentenced to death and they were all evil. — Agent Smith

This indicates only that in their cases they were sentenced to death and were evil. It doesn't establish that those sentenced to death are all evil, or that those who are evil are all sentenced to death.

It bears mentioning though that I've heard of judicial sentences of even 300 years (multiple life sentences), an attempt, in my humble opinion, to highlight the severity of an offense. — Agent Smith

It's merely the result of being convicted of more than one crime, for each of which a sentence is imposed. So, you sometimes hear of sentences being served concurrently, and sometimes you hear of them being served consecutively. Consecutive sentences can add up to any number of years, and sometimes have no practical effect.

It did kill the rabbit, the holy handgranade, after it had been lobbed on the count of three. Then the party gaily entered the caverns. — god must be atheist

Thank you. That was a pretty nasty rabbit.

What about the ordinary folks? — baker

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, the records we have relate only to persons of status, wealth and power when it comes to such things.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

How do you know you can't comprehend? Try to, and see what happens.

It's called "holy" before its impact (explosion) you see. I can't remember if it killed that rabbit, though.

What else? — Janus

In that case we may speak of them as being contingently holy, or holy at some point or to some person, sometime, maybe not now but maybe in the future. They become holy, then; they aren't holy themselves. Sometimes, in fact, they aren't holy, if they don't have the requisite impact on the particular reader.

Most people care about what happens after their death. — Andrew4Handel

What happens to them, or to those who live on?

I would assume you are well acquainted with why these questions bother some, whilst Quietism would seem to profess an attitude of (indifference?) if non-care towards them; but, not based on emotive reasonings; however based on rational grounds. — Shawn

I'm aware they bother some, and have an opinion why they do. Quietism, I think, simply recognizes that philosophers haven't and likely will never provide an answer to those questions, if they properly can be called "questions." That doesn't necessarily mean Quietists are indifferent to them, but they understand, e.g., that language has limitations, and some things must be shown as Wittgenstein said.

A Prologue to Love is a book by Taylor Caldwell. Seneca is quoted in the book. I'm not sure of the source of the quote by Seneca.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quietism." I know it as the view that philosophy is therapeutic or remedial, and has nothing substantive or positive to contribute. I tend to think of modern philosophy in that way. I think some ancient philosophy was positive in the sense that it provided good practical wisdom regarding how to live, and even spiritual guidance, though.

Jesus screams on the cross and then asks why God has abandoned him. It's odd that they kept that detail in there after all these years. — frank

It is, yes.

Christianity is amazing. — frank

On that we agree, though not perhaps for the same reasons.

ut what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite, which is that the more they've been interpreted, the more they've been venerated. Jewish interpretation of the Torah has been imaginative for thousands of years and it continues to define a culture. — Hanover

That would seem to make them "holy" not because of what they are, but because of how they came to be interpreted centuries after they were written by people in different circumstances under different influence.

I think it's the opposite. — frank

That's interesting. If you mean that they're more inspiring to us for being metaphors, I think I understand. But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"?

I think Greco-Roman religion had a fatal flaw in that the gods themselves were not ethical, but capricious. Thus mystery-cults and religions that provided an ethical-oriented deity made more sense. Add to it the apocalypticism of a sort of "goal" and you have this inbuilt, very appealing worldview. — schopenhauer1

I know what you mean. And, a good deal of the ritual involved in the worship of the traditional gods seems devoted to keeping them happy enough not to smash us, or abandon us, and induce them to do favors for us. Traditional Roman religion seems almost legal in its devotion to rules; if you got one step wrong during the ritual, you had to start all over again. More than that seems to have been involved in the mysteries.

It seems that most looked to philosophy for ethics. Epicureanism and Stoicism were quite popular among the elite during the Empire.

Mine as well.

We will never get the direct feed. — Paine

Sad but true.

With that said, I do share one element of why you wanted to separate the two. I grew up in a church environment and was shocked when I actually read the New Testament for myself the first time. Hearing the words of Jesus was getting a different message outside of the bottle it was shoved into. — Paine

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, how much the Christian religion has to do with what it purports to worship.

It would have been interesting if the emperor Julian were to have not died after three short years as emperor. He was trying to reverse the course of the Christian spread. — schopenhauer1

Very interesting. Some think it was too late to do anything significant, but perhaps he could at least have managed to keep paganism going for a time if only among minorities. By the way, if you haven't read Gore Vidal's novel Julian, I recommend it highly.

Why they chose the Bible as their mechanism for such mental gymnastics likely has a historical basis, but I'd argue their odd enterprise has been successful in finding meaning in the world. — Hanover

I think that Holy Books present a problem for those who consider them fundamental to their religious beliefs. The problem is that the more one disregards them, or interprets them, or treat them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be. They're not factual, they're not fundamentally the word of God, they aren't anything, really, but what one wants them to be. They're convenient. In that case they become little more than suggestive, subject to the whims of their interpreters. They can be made to sanction most anything.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the New Testament is all we have along with the apocrypha (and short snippets in Roman sources). If what they say about his isn't true, then it isn't true. If what they say about him is true, then it's true. If we take the position that it isn't true, just how "holy" are these writings, and what of those who wrote them? Did their authors deliberately write falsehoods, or make things up, or credulously record whatever they heard from others? Were they inspired to do so by God?

If they're true, though, then they're (pardon me) inconveniently true for those who would rather not believe he worked miracles, or said that we can come to God only through him, or that he was the Son of God, or was resurrected, or ascended into heaven, or would return to judge the living and the dead riding a white horse, etc.

My interest in Jesus is that of a lapsed Catholic and someone interested in Rome and its empire, including the pagan religions popular in it, and in their extermination and assimilation by Christianity. I know very little of the Jewish factions which existed while Jesus is said to have been alive. What you say seems feasible, but I don't know enough to critique it.

This thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and I think the theme you mention has become a part of it. But when I commenced it, I was noting what I felt to be the fact that sophisticated Christian apologists, theologians, or philosophers, though they include Jesus in their thought and work, do so in a way which I think ignores or is sometimes contrary to the Jesus depicted in Scripture--what he supposedly did and said. I wondered why, in that case, they included him in their work, and by implication whether their philosophy or theology should be considered "Christian," or whether it really isn't Christian at all, or only nominally so.

And fictional ideals is probably all that Stoicism and Bushido ever were anyway. — baker

What would be a non-fictional ideal?

Well seeing as how he grew up in a very Hellenistic society he must’ve been familiar with the kind of philosophy accessible to the every day man. The ascetic commands of Jesus to the apostles do resemble the practices of the Cynics. But I like to think that Stoicism had a huge influence on him; this was the philosophy of the working man, a man that lived in society. — Dermot Griffin

I don't know if Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, and the several Roman Senators who considered themselves Stoics can be considered working men, or even Musonius Rufus for that matter. Epictetus of course was a slave, however. it would seem Stoicism appealed to people of different social status and wealth.

I'm not sure how Hellenistic Judea was at the time Jesus is said to have lived. Alexandria and Antioch had Jewish communities influenced by Hellenism. I don't know about Jerusalem or Judea. We do know that when Hadrian tried to create a Hellenistic city on the site of Jerusalem and it resulted in a bloody three-year revolt. We have nothing indicating Jesus spoke Greek or could read it. We don't have much information about him, and asceticism wasn't limited to Cynics or Stoics, so I think we're best advised to be cautious in our assertions of influence.

Paul and others were clearly influenced by pagan philosophy and the pagan mystery cults, however.

Sorry, but when I see "View Answer" I'm too much reminded of advertising. I decline to do so.

I don't think a Stoic would consider Stoicism "The way of the warrior, " however. I know some think it to be that, or similar to it, but then some people think of Stoicism as a way to be a successful entrepreneur. These sad days, there are people who look to Marcus Aurelius like people used to look to Dale Carnegie.

Agreed, that is why I used it as an example of arbitrary classifications. When I applied to law firms they asked me to submit a list of grades. I was good at making exams so I became a legal theoretician at uni ;) Though being good at law exams says nothing about being successful at writing a PhD either... — Tobias

I started clerking at a law firm after my first year in law school. I enjoyed that far more than my time in the lecture halls. Oddly, my grades got better, but I think that's because the first year was devoted to the effort of trying to cram property, criminal, tort and other basic law into my bewildered mind. I remember one professor who taught labor law did so by reading to us a textbook he had authored. To be fair, things got better.

Early Christianity cheerfully looted from pagan philosophy extensively, but I'm not aware of anything indicating that Jesus did himself.

For instance the idea that your grades in uni make you a better lawyer and so you get hired easier. It advantages people who score good grades on exam questions... It says nothing about all kinds of other qualities. — Tobias

I've always been baffled by this view, as I think it clear that what you're taught, especially in law school, has nothing to do with the practice of law. Perhaps someone who does very well in law school may make a good law professor, or a judge's clerk, or an associate in a large firm who spends time doing research and writing memos and briefs. It may prepare you for that, but more than that? Why would it?

The Mithraic iconography of bull, lion head, snake, rock, and radiance can all be found in the religions of far more ancient cultures. — Fooloso4

Then there are the torch bearers, Cautes and Cautopates, one with torch up, one with torch down. Representing sunrise and sunset? Maybe. And then there are the seven levels of initiates: Corax, Nymphus, Miles, Leo, Perses, Heliodromus and Pater, each with their own symbols. Do they represent the known planets (gods)? Maybe. A curious cult, to which I'm drawn, oddly. Probably was a Pater in a past life.