Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, February 17, 2017

Quizzes Feb 21 & 23

Feb 21, DR 12 (Add your questions from the latter half of the chapter.)

1. What did Aristotle set up in 335 BC?

2. What was dearer to Aristotle than Plato?

3. What was the fundamental difference between Aristotle and Plato, and how was it reflected in his attitude towards the "cave"?

4. What three things did Aristotle say are always involved in change?

5. What was Aristotle's name for God, and what did he say He thinks about?

6. How does Aristotle's view of the fundamental type of existence contrast with Plato's theory of Forms?


  • Would you rather attend Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum? Why?
  • Have you ever sharply disagreed with a teacher whom you nonetheless deeply admired?
  • Is change the only constant in the Universe? Is that paradoxical?
  • Which God seems more plausible to you, one who is personally interested in human affairs or Aristotle's contemplative and self-regarding Mover? Which seems more compatible with the world as we know it?
  • Are forms in things, or do they stand apart and above as pure Ideas?
  • What do you see as the value of logic?
  • How can a person excel at "the art of living"? (275) Did Aristotle have the right idea about this? Do you have any role-models in this regard?
  • Aristotle said we philosophize not in order to know what excellence is, but to be excellent and become good. (283) Is this a false dichotomy? Do you have to know what good is, at least implicitly, before you can be good?
  • Is art a "cave within a cave" (286), or a source of light and truth? Or both?
  • Do you agree with Plato that "laughing at comedies makes us cyncial, shallow and ignoble"? (289)
  • If you side with Aristotle in preferring to study "earthly things" does that imply less interest in "thoughts of the heavens"? (290)

Feb 23, LH 4-5 [Note: we're skipping LH 3, on skepticism, for now. We'll come back to it next week.]
1. According to Epicurus, fear of death is based on what, and the best way to live is what?

2. How is the modern meaning of "epicurean" different from Epicurus's?

3. What famous 20th century philosopher echoed Epicurus's attitude towards death?

4. What was the Stoics' basic idea, and what was their aim?

5. Why did Cicero think we shouldn't worry about dying?

6. Why didn't Seneca consider life too short?


  • Are you afraid of death, of dying, or of any other aspect of human mortality? Why or why not? What's the best way to counter such fear?
  • Are you epicurean in any sense of the word?
  • Have you experienced the death of someone close to you? How did you handle it?
  • Do you believe in the possibility of a punitive and painful afterlife? Do you care about the lives of those who will survive you? Which do you consider more important? Why?
  • Do you consider Epicurus's disbelief in immortal souls a solution to the problem of dying, or an evasion of it? Do you find the thought of ultimate mortality consoling or mortifying?
  • How do you know, or decide, which things you can change and which you can't? 
  • Were the Stoics right to say we can always control our attitude towards events, even if we can't control events themselves?
  • Is it easier for you not to get "worked up" about small things you can't change (like the weather, or bad drivers) or large things (like presidential malfeasance and terrorist atrocites)?  Should you be equally calm in the face of both?
  • Who had the better idea about why we shouldn't be afraid to die, Epicurus or Cicero?
  • Do you waste too much time? How do you think you can make the most of the time you have?
  • Is it possible to live like a Stoic without becoming cold, heartless, and inhumane?

Book of Life: Epicurus

Old posts-
Pyrrho, Epicurus (LH); WATCH:Epicurus (SoL); Epicurus on HappinessLISTEN: Epicureanism(IOT); Epicurus the greatest philosopher? (IOT). Podcast
Quiz Sep16

1. (T/F) Extreme sceptics (skeptics, in the USA) like Pyrrho thought it best to avoid holding firm opinions on anything.

2. The point of moderate skepticism (unlike Pyrrho's extreme version) is to get closer to what? 

3. (T/F) Epicurus said it's reasonable to fear death. 

4. (T/F) "Epicurean" originally meant someone who indulges in luxury and sensual pleasure. 

5. What 20th century philosopher had a view of death similar to Epicurus's?

6. Epicurus's attitude will be unlikely to work for you if you believe what?


1. Do you find it comforting or troubling to assert and identify with strong opinions?

2. "Don't believe everything you think." Good advice? What should you believe? How should you decide what to believe?

3. Do you fear death, or dying, or oblivion? Why or why not? OR, Do you agree that death is not an event to be experienced in life?

4. Do you have any expensive tastes? If so, how do you satisfy them? If not, is that because your time is worth more to you than anything else?

5. Nigel says it's a mistake to think there will be something of us left to feel whatever happens to our dead bodies. Agree or disagree? Why?

6. Can you really imagine what it would be like to continue existing after your heart stops? Can you describe what you imagine? What's your basis for that description? Are you threatened by the fact that not everyone believes in a supernatural afterlife? What about a natural afterlife?

Pyrrho reminds me of the Ruler of the Universe

...who is really more Pyrrhonist Skeptic than solipsist, I think.

MAN:   Pussy pussy pussy . . . coochicoochicoochi . . . pussy want his fish? Nice piece of fish . . . pussy want it? Pussy not eat his fish, pussy get thin and waste away, I think. I imagine this is what will happen, but how can I tell? I think it's better if I don't get involved. I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet so who am I to judge? Ah, you're eating it.

I like it when I see you eat the fish, because in my mind you will waste away if you don't.

Fish come from far away, or so I'm told. Or so I imagine I'm told. When the men come, or when in my mind the men come in their six black shiny ships do they come in your mind too? What do you see, pussy? And when I hear their questions, all their many questions do you hear questions? Perhaps you just think they're singing songs to you. Perhaps they are singing songs to you and I just think they're asking me questions. Do you think they came today? I do. There's mud on the floor, cigarettes and whisky on my table, fish in your plate and a memory of them in my mind. And look what else they've left me. Crosswords, dictionaries and a calculator. I think I must be right in thinking they ask me questions. To come all that way and leave all these things just for the privilege of singing songs to you would be very strange behaviour. Or so it seems to me. Who can tell, who can tell.
. . . .
MAN:   I think I saw another ship in the sky today. A big white one. I've never seen a big white one. Only six small black ones. Perhaps six small black ones can look like one big white one. Perhaps I would like a glass of whisky. Yes, that seems more likely.
. . . .
Perhaps some different people are coming to see me.
. . . .
MAN:     Hello?
FORD PREFECT:    Er, excuse me, do you rule the Universe?
MAN:     I try not to. Are you wet?
FORD:    Wet! Well, doesn't it look as if we're wet?
MAN:    That's how it looks to me, but how you feel about it might be a different matter. If you find warmth makes you feel dry you'd better come in.
. . . .
ZAPHOD BEEBLEBROX:  Er, man, like what's your name?
MAN:       I don't know. Why, do you think I ought to have one? It seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name.
ZARNIWOOP:  Listen. We must ask you some questions.
MAN:    All right. You can sing to my cat if you like.
ARTHUR DENT:  Would he like that?
MAN:   You'd better ask him that.
ZARNIWOOP:  How long have you been ruling the Universe?
MAN:   Ah, this is a question about the past is it?
MAN:    How can I tell that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?
ZARNIWOOP:  Do you answer all questions like this?
MAN:    I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More I cannot say.
. . . .
ZARNIWOOP:     No. Listen. People come to you, yes?
MAN:  I think so.
ZARNIWOOP:    And they ask you to take decisions—about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?
MAN:    I only decide about my Universe. My Universe is what happens to my eyes and ears. Anything else is surmise and hearsay. For all I know, these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.
ZARNIWOOP:  But don't you see? What you decide affects the fate of millions of people.
MAN:    I don't know them, I've never met them. They only exist in words I think I hear. The men who come say to me, say, so and so wants to declare what we call a war. These are the facts, what do you think? And I say. Sometimes it's a smaller thing. . . .
. . . .
MAN:    But it's folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know. If they exist.
ZARNIWOOP:  Do you think they do?
MAN:    I have no opinion. How can I have?
MAN:   So you say—or so I hear you say.
. . . .
ZARNIWOOP:  But don't you see that people live or die on your word?
MAN:    It's nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.
ZARNIWOOP:    Ah! You say . . . the Lord! You believe in . . .
MAN:    My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.
ZARNIWOOP:  All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?
MAN:    I don't. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do? Please I am tired.
. . . .

Note: This philosophical dialogue is excerpted from the final scene of the original radio series The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  This sequence can also be found in chapter 29 of the novel The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, with more narrative description and slightly expanded dialogue.

Here's something completely different: a cartoon view of Aristophanes' fable in Plato's Symposium:

This morning's dawn post-
Back to the garden

Good classes again yesterday, continuing to explore what's good about the good life ofeudaimon in CoPhi, and in Happiness wondering if it's as easy to dispel our instinctive fear of oblivion or a punitive post-existence in a supernatural afterlife as Epicurus said it is.

I'm not the only one, it emerged, who as a small and trusting child was taught and inadvertently terrorized by a bedtime prayer before the age of reason:

"Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep, if I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take."

Another "aging professor [who] lanents his shrinking brain" has recently noted the abusive aspects of that little rhyme.

I don't blame my parents, who with the best of intentions simply transmitted an old religious meme that's been kicking around unchallenged for eons (or since 1711, allegedly). They didn't talk much about Hell or eternal divine retribution in our home (leaving that unpleasantness to the preacher and Sunday School teachers), nor do I think they thought about it much themselves. And therein lies a huge but non-malicious cultural error of omission that philosophy must rectify.

It was in the name of philosophy that I thus responded as I did to the student who yesterday insisted the error is not that of those who instill fear in their young, but rather of those like Epicurus and me, who would slough it off. It's not unreasonable or irrational, he suggested, to fear a god who just might be crazy enough to commit the innocent children he loves (as George Carlin reminded us) to the flames.

So I testified to my own Epicurean moment, as a youngster, when the whole frightening fable just no longer felt real. The student said a belief that makes you uncomfortable (bit of an understatement, that) might still be true. Yes, I said, but discomfort might be reason enough to explore other worldviews. And, I added, "if there's a retributive god out there, may he strike me down. No, wait: may he strike you down."

It got a laugh, but there's a serious point here. So many believers (and non-believers) are so frequently devastated by life's various natural calamities and moral calumnies, that faith loses all credibility as a shield against punitive bolts from heaven. Heaven loses all credibility as a saving alternative to hell.

And that's why Epicurus and his Garden friends would applaud Professor Dawkins' bus billboard campaign. (Unlike him, though, I think they'd prefer to leave "probably" on the bus.)

I was asked if I agree with Dawkins' rhetorical extremity, in calling religious indoctrination "child abuse." I don't use that language myself, as there seems a crucial distinction between the unwitting harm of much indoctrination and the exceptionless malevolent harm of assault and torture. My parents were no torturers. Most religious fundamentalists are not torturers. But they do inflict harm, in the form of an unfounded fear. I forgive them, they know not what they do.

And I say, with Epicurus: Relax, and enjoy. We are stardust, and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden. Park that bus right here.

Pyrrho, Epicurus, & God again

In CoPhi today it's Pyrrho the deep skeptic, Epicurus the hedonist (though I've indicated *my dissatisfaction with applying that label to him) and seeker of simple pleasures and happiness; and God (subbing this time for the APA).

So, to Pyrrho and Epicurus... but first a quick follow-up on Plato and Aristotle. Check out this version of School of Athens.

As for Aristotle’s eudaimonia, in some ways it anticipated Epicurus’s garden and what Jennifer Michael Hecht calls “graceful-life philosophies” that proclaim in all simplicity: “we don’t need answers and don’t need much stuff, we just need to figure out the best way to live.” Then, and only then, will we be happy.

As for Pyrrho: If you’d asked him Who rules the Universe?, he might have replied: Lord knows. Cats, again. And pigs.

Reminding us of Pyrrho’s famous pig, who impressed Montaigne by riding out a storm at sea with much greater equanimity (and, crucially, much less comprehension) than his human shipmates, and of J.S. Mill’s declaration that it’s “better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied,” Hecht comments: “This whole pig-versus-philosopher debate is pretty hilarious, yes?”

Yes. But I agree with Spinoza and Hecht. “The happiness of a drunkard is not the happiness of the wise,” though of course there are happy occasions when it has its place too. Bottom line: “Knowledge and wisdom are worth it,” it can be everything to have found true love and meaningful work, and both– all-- can end in a flash, without warning. Stay on your toes, but don’t fret too much about the storm.

One more little animal image for Pyrrho, whose name I prefer to pronounce compatibly with this mnemonic trick: just remember that a pyrrhonic skeptic is like a piranha fish, toothily devouring every proposed candidate for belief. Cats and pigs too, probably.

Bertrand Russell: "He is said to have maintained that there could never be any rational ground for preferring one course of action to another. In practice, this meant that one conformed to the customs of whatever country one inhabited. A modern disciple would go to church on Sundays and perform the correct genuflexions, but without any of the religious beliefs that are supposed to inspire these actions." Like Pascal's Wager, this approach smacks of insincerity. Laziness, too, since it purports to show "the ignorant to be as wise as the reputed men of learning." What's a better way? To be curious and hopeful.

The man of science says 'I think it is so and so but I am not sure.' The man of intellectual curiosity says 'I don't know how it is but I hope to find out. The philosophical Sceptic says 'nobody knows, and nobody ever can know.'

And as for Epicurus, Jennifer Hecht‘s got his number. It’s listed.

For an Epicurean, somewhere there are beings that are truly at peace, are happy… The mere idea of this gentle bliss is, itself, a kind of uplifting dream. After all, we human beings know a strange thing: happiness responds to circumstances, but, basically, it is internal. We can experience it when it happens to come upon us; we can induce it with practices or drugs; but we cannot just be happy.

No, we must work to “solve the schism” between how we feel and how we want to feel. Happiness is a choice and a lifetime endeavor, and though it comes easier for some than for others there are tips and tricks we can use to trip our internal happy meters and achieve ataraxia, peace of mind, simple contentment, “tranquillity, or the freedom from disturbance and pain that characterizes a balanced mind and constitutes its first step toward the achievement of pleasure.”

(But btw, as for that claim that we can't just "be happy": Mr. Tolstoy, subject of yesterday's bonus quiz question (and Google Doodle), seems to have thought otherwise. The pithiest quote I've found from the prolix author of War and Peace: "If you want to be happy, be.")

Stop fearing the harmless and remote gods, Epicurus said. Stop fearing your own death, it’s not (as Wittgenstein would echo, millennia later) an event you’ll ever experience. “Life is full of sweetness. We might as well enjoy it.”

*Sissela Bok calls Epicurus a hedonist, but that's only technically correct. Yes, he said pleasure's at the heart of happiness. But what kind of pleasure?

A happy life is tranquil, simple, loving, and above all free from pain, fear, and suffering, available to all regardless of social status, nationality, or gender. Such a life of pleasure, Epicurus held, would of necessity have to be a virtuous one.

That’s Alain de Botton, author of a text I used to use in this course, and controversial proponent of religion for atheists. (Don’t confuse him with Boethius.) His interview with Krista Tippett was instructive. Like Jennifer Hecht, he wants us to use philosophy to enhance our bliss and sweeten our dreams.

Pyrrhonian deep skepticism and moral/cultural relativism share a common root. Simon Blackburn voices the right reply to those who say we can function without beliefs, or without discriminating between better and worse beliefs, when he points out that this is simply impractical and socially dysfunctional. Not only might you get run over by a racing chariot or step off a cliff, you also scatter seeds of discord within your community and perhaps even your family.

So I too “would defend the practical importance of thinking about ethics on pragmatic grounds.” To pretend with “Rosy the Relativist” that we can all simply have and act on our own truths, our own facts, without confronting and negotiating our differences and critically evaluating our respective statements of (dis)belief, really is “farcical.” Lord knows.

We won’t suffer a meaning deficit, though, if we live simply and naturally in the company of friends who’ll help us conquer our fears and address our many questions about life, the universe, and everything. That’s the Epicurean way, when we decide nature’s already provided enough for our peace of mind and our contentment. That’s ataraxia.

So finally there are these dots, connecting Epicurus and Pyrrho:

Epicurus, though no friend to skepticism, admired Pyrrho because he recommended and practiced the kind of self-control that fostered tranquillity; this, for Epicurus, was the end of all physical and moral science. Pyrrho was so highly valued by his countrymen that they honored him with the office of chief priest and, out of respect for him, passed a decree by which all philosophers were made immune from taxation.

Tranquility and a free ride: now that would make me happy.

We're also finishing the God chapter in Philosophy: The Basics today. We consider Hume on miraclesPascal's WagerDon Cupitt's non-realism, faith and fear (and Epicurus again). It's hard to contest Nigel's last observation, that some people would rather give up one or more of God's omni-attributes than give up God, period. But then we're going to have to ask them: Is your downsized God big enough to create and sustain a cosmos? Heretofore, as the late great Carl Sagan observed, most humans have conceived their gods on a blighted and decidedly non-cosmic scale.
Cynics, Skeptics, Epicureans, & Stoics, HP 228-270 (Ch XXVI-XXVIII); PW 15
Also recommended: WATCH Epicurus (SoL); Epicurus on Happiness; The Stoics (SoL); LISTEN Epicureanism (IOT);Epicurus the greatest philosopher? (IOT); Seneca & facing death (HI)

NOTE: if you can't spare the time to read these longer assignments in their entirety, just be sure at least to read those passages relevant to the daily quiz.

1. Why was Diogenes called a "cynic"?
2. What did Diogenes mean when he said his aim in life was to "deface the coinage"?
3. What did Pyrrho's scepticism mean, in practice?
4. How did Timon express his scepticism with regard to honey?
5. What was Epicurus' attitude towards luxurious pleasures?
6. What was Epicurus' philosophy designed to secure? What did he consider the "wise man's goal"?
7. What did Seneca bequeath to his family?
8. Which Stoic was a slave? Which an emperor?
9. According to Gros, the only Greek sages who were authentic walkers were who? How did they differ from sedentary philosophers?
10. Why did the homeless Cynic call himself rich?

Do we live in a cynical age, either by Diogenes' definition (231) or in some other sense? Are you cynical?
Do you feel any sympathy for the Cynics' version of the simple life? 232
What do you think of Pyrrho's extreme sceptcism? 233
Do you consider it wise or foolish to try and refrain from holding specific beliefs or preferring one course of action to another?
Is death really "nothing to us," and nothing to fear?
What do you think Epicurus would say about people nowadays who consider themselves "epicurean"?
What gives you your greatest peace of mind? What style of living, extravagant, modest, or simple, do you intend to pursue?
Which is more important to you, the absence of pain or the presence of pleasure?
What do you think of Epicurus' attitudes towards sex and friendship?
What would you do if you were ordered by a crazed dictator to kill yourself?
Do you agree with Epictetus about being "a citizen of the universe"? 263
According to Gros's definition, are you more sedentary or peripatetic? PW 130
How do you think Diogenes' idea of what it means to be a citizen of the world differs from that of other cosmopolitans like Epictetus? PW 138
Please post your DQs
Old posts on the Stoics, Skeptics & Epicureans, Diogenes etc.:

6.-The Inheritors: Philosophy in the Hellenistic Age

1. How did the Hellenistic philosophers want to broaden their inheritance from Plato and Aristotle?
2. What was Antisthenes' critique of Plato's Forms?
3. What were Strato's two crucial decisions?
4. What was Aristotle's alternative to Big Picture thinking?
  • What do you think of Diogenes the Cynic? Was he an admirable iconoclast and gadfly in the Socratic mold, a disgusting anti-social reprobate, or something else? If he was the first deconstructionist, what was Socrates?
  • Would the Hellenistic philosophers have been at home on our social media? (80) Should more intellectuals reach out to a broader public, beyond the ivy walls and ivory tower? Or does that cheapen scholarship?
  • Is there "one crucial thing" (81) that represents the secret of happiness? What do you think of Aristippus's "formula" (82) and Epicurus's doctrines? Do you find the latter "chilly and comfortless" (83)? How about Seneca's suicidal fatalism?
  • Can science, and the philosophy of science, do justice to both the detailed diairein of empirical inquiry AND the Big Picture?
Also of note:
  • Should we broaden our scope? Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have time to stroll through muchWorld Philosophy this summer, but maybe we can peek at a travelogue or two, or try some Buddhist walking meditation*, or... ?
  • A proposal to rename most philosophy departments to more accurately reflect their focus on European and American philosophy prompted a spirited debate between readers who favor a European focus and scholars and students of Chinese, Islamic and other thought traditions.
  • “We ask those who sincerely believe that it does make sense to organize our discipline entirely around European and American figures and texts to pursue this agenda with honesty and openness,” wrote Jay L. Garfield and Bryan W. Van Norden in an essay in The Stone series. “We therefore suggest that any department that regularly offers courses only on Western philosophy should rename itself ‘Department of European and American Philosophy.’”
  • One reader said the term “philosophy” itself necessarily indicates the Western tradition rooted in Greek thought... (continues)
  • *Walking meditation is most closely associated with Buddhism. In her wonderful history of walking, Wanderlust, Rebecca Solnit notes in a stream of tracks traipsing across the bottom of the pages that "in Japanese the word for 'walk' is the same word which is used to refer to Buddhist practice..." But she also notes an Eskimo custom of walking away from anger.
There: we've smuggled in a bit of eastern and world philosophy, amidst our western stroll. Let's keep looking for ways to do that.
And for Diogenes, to whom we turn tomorrow in chapter six, the journey is a search for honesty and freedom. That's a quarry that can be especially elusive. Better bring the dogs. Don't let the Emperor or your teacher or anyone block your light.

My good friend the new Gradual Student offers another nice metaphor, of life's journey as a rickety bus ride. They killed Socrates when he went back to the cave. Will the other riders be more forgiving, when the enlightened rider re-boards?

"I think we're all bozos on this bus," whether we've read the Republic or not.

And I think Ken Kesey was right, we're all a little cuckoo. "You're either on the bus or off it." We've got a ticket to ride, but I'm with Aristotle. I'd prefer to walk.
Monday, May 16, 2016
The cynical solution
You don't realize how much stuff a college dorm can hold until you have to empty it. Took about four hours of schlepping between dorm room and two packed-to-the-gillls vehicles yesterday... a nice break in the monotony of the drive up and back.

And the happy result: family all home and reunited, until Older Daughter's next move in about three weeks, destination Hollywood via Chavez Ravine. (I'm looking forward to catching a glimpse of the great Vin Scully, she's looking forward to a glimpse of her professional future.)

Another happy weekend event: the neighbors down the street hosted a block party, with bourbon, beer, barbeque, and bluegrass I'd just been complaining about how we don't make enough of an effort, most of the time, to know the people in our neighborhood. As with so many inertial complaints, the solution was simple. Somebody just had to step up and issue the invitations. Thanks for your generosity and initiative, neighbors.

Today's lifelong learning philosophers thought happiness pretty easy to solve: the Stoics and Skeptics both say it involves a therapeutic recognition and acceptance of our limitations. We can only do and know so much. As the overworked sports cliche has it, they tell us we can be happy if we just learn to "stay within ourselves" and don't overreach.

The original Hellenistic Stoics and Skeptics were cousins of the Epicureans and Cynics. What they all had in common was a sense that humans could indeed take the initiative and create the conditions of their own well-being by living in accord with nature. They "hoped to move philosophy beyond the bounds of formal discussion" established in the groves of Plato's and Aristotle's academes, writes Arthur Herman in The Cave and the Light, and to impress everyday people with the value of reflective thinking that informs deliberate and ameliorative living. They "would have been at home on Facebook or Twitter as any contemporary blogger."

Diogenes the Cynic was a dog philosopher, finding canines more reliable than humans. Homeless, fearless, and deconstructive, he famously told Alexander to "stand out of my sunlight." He had no use for social status or convention, or for intellectual conundrums that fail to recognize a practical solution even when staring it in the face. [Diogenes @dawn]

Solvitur ambulando! He'd have been fun at a block party. Probably not so much help on moving day, though: we'd have had to step around the "School of Athens" lounger while he complained about the light.
Happy birthday, Studs Terkel! Studs was no cynic, but Diogenes would have loved him anyway. "Why are we born? We're born eventually to die, of course. But what happens between the time we're born and we die? We're born to live. One is a realist if one hopes."
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Grit in the glass
The Stoics and Skeptics are glass-half-empty people, a lack-centered disposition and temperament not to my taste. But they're also be calm and carry on people of perseverance andgrit. That deserves a lot of credit

“Begin each day," advises Aurelius, "by telling yourself: Today I shall be meeting with interference, ingratitude, insolence, disloyalty, ill-will, and selfishness – all of them due to the offenders’ ignorance of what is good or evil.” I don't endorse that - we've all had many better days, better meetings - but I do admire the proactivity, the advance work, and the charity of the assumption that even the most obnoxious people are doing the best they know how to do.

“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.” True, and on the quality of the thoughts of others whose deeds flow from those thoughts. Stoics don't like to talk about that, and the vulnerable mutual dependency it implies, but it's true too. That's why we can't be content to work only on ourselves, and why I can't accept the Stoic proposition that only our respective interiors can be landscaped. We must ameliorate external conditions too, or die trying.

For Schopenhauer, external conditions and inner life alike are wholly controlled by the impersonal, implacable, voracious Will. We can't starve it to death but we can learn to feed it on our schedule, and feed it less.

“It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is impossible to find it anywhere else.” Yes, but the best skeptics know it's imperative to seek it together and in public, and to share our finds. That's why they write books, live with dogs (Schopenhauer's were all called "Atman"), and stay on Earth as long as they can. We must imagine them (the best of them) happy. Glass half empty? I'll have another.
Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca (LH); WATCH: The Stoics (SoL); LISTEN:Seneca & facing death (HI)... Podcast

1. Which Stoic started out as a slave, and inspired a future American fighter pilot?

2. Which Stoic, a lawyer, politician, and noted orator as well as a philosopher, said experience, friendship, and conversation offset some of the problems associated with growing old?

3. Which Stoic said our problem is not how short life is, but how badly most of us use the time we do have (and then ironically had his own life shortened at Nero's command)?

4. Like the ancient skeptics, Stoics aim for what?

5. One benefit of living well is that you don't have to fear what (besides death) when you're old?

6. One potential problem with Stoic indifference to events beyond our control is that we risk becoming what?
*BONUS questions:

*Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma implies that either God is not the source of morality, OR morality is arbitrary...
*For Immanuel Kant, a deontologist in ethics, a moral action is one performed from a sense of ________. (duty, fear, selfishness, inclination, sympathy, compassion) P 42

*This 19th century English Utilitarian said we should seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number. And, you can still go and see him in London:

*The late 20th century Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick came up with a virtual reality thought experiment he called the _______ Machine.


1. Do you think you could effectively adopt a Stoic mindset ("Our thoughts are up to us," we shouldn't be affected by circumstances beyond our control, etc.) that would enable you to endure captivity and torture? IDo you attempt to adopt that mindset in less extreme everyday circumstances (like a rainstorm just before class)?

2. Do you "hope [you] die before you get old" or do you look forward to the compensations of old age (memories, old friends, grandchildren etc.)? Do you think 100 become the new 65, in your lifetime? How long do you hope to live? If cryonics ever becomes plausible would you want to use it?

3. Are you a good time-manager, or a procrastinator? Do you usually approach life as if you had "all the time in the world"? If Nero ordered YOU to take your own life, would you resist or comply? Why?

4. Are you a calm, tranquil, laid-back person? Do you try to be? How do you (try to) achieve that state of mind?

5. Do you know any old people with lots of happy, pleasant, instructive memories? Would you say they've lived well, or "flourished" over their lifetimes?

6. Is there a way to be a compassionate, caring person AND avoid excessive worry about tragic, troubling events?
Contrary to Dostoevsky...

Stoics & ethics

It’s a terse and breezy reading assignment in Little History today in CoPhi, on the StoicsEpictetusCicero, and Seneca. We're also looking at the first half of our chapter on Right & Wrong, concerned mainly with deontologists and utilitarians. (They're bumping last year's complementary discussion of Stoics & Pragmatists.)

’Being philosophical’ simply means accepting what you can’t change, for instance the inevitable process of growing older and the shortness of life.

‘Stoic’ came from the Stoa, which was a painted porch.

Like the Sceptics, Stoics aimed for a calm state of mind. Even when facing tragic events, such as the death of a loved one, the Stoic should remain unmoved. Our attitude to what happens is within our control even though what happens often isn’t. [The Philosophy of Calm, Ph'er Mail]

Stoics think we are responsible for what we feel and think. We can choose our response to good and bad luck… They believe emotions cloud reasoning and damage judgment.

Epictetus [don't confuse him with his predecessor Epicurus] started out as a slave. When he declared that the mind can remain free even when the body is enslaved he was drawing on his own experience. [Tom Wolfe's Epictetus, nyt]

The brevity of life and the inevitability of aging were topics that particularly interested Cicero and Seneca.

Cicero said old people can spend more time on friendship and conversation. He believed the soul lived forever, so old people shouldn’t worry about dying. [Epicurus already told us they needn't worry in any event.]

For Seneca the problem is not how short our lives are, but rather how badly most of us use what time we have.

“The greatest obstacle to living is expectancy, which hangs upon tomorrow and loses today… The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.” Maria Popova, Brainpickings

The Stoic ideal was to live like a recluse… studying philosophy and get[ting] rid of those troublesome emotions.

["Seneca falls"... "dead stoics society"..."philosopher walks"..."premeditation"..."per aspera"..."self-sufficient"... Seneca on anger (de Botton)... (The Shortness of Life: Seneca on the Art of Living Well Rather Than Living Long - Brainpickings) The Shortness of Life: Seneca on Busyness and The Art of Living Wide Rather Than Living Long]

 The New Yorker (@NewYorker)

2/1/15, 4:05 PM
Seneca’s plays were gore-fests. His wealth was vast. He counselled tyrants. And he called himself a Stoic?nyr.kr/1EPqUOh

 Book of Life (@bkoflife)

2/18/15, 7:31 AM
Philosophical meditation, a guide thebookoflife.org/philosophical-…

But Nigel Warburton‘s question is right on target: at what price? If you’re even half human, like Mr. Spock, you’ll only damage yourself by suppressing your affective side. Calm may not be the greatest good, after all. On the other hand, Stoicism is widely misunderstood - even by Vulcans.http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/how-to-be-a-stoic/ … @mpigliucci

Anyway, Roman philosophy is under-rated. The Romans have done a lot for us.

And not all emperors were so bad as Nero. Marcus Aurelius was actually quite sane, and humane.

Stoicism, with its general mindset of not allowing oneself to be moved or harmed by externals beyond one's control, and the crucial assumption that our own thoughts are ours to manage, always courts the cold of Vulcan indifference but also offers the last line of defense for prisoners of war and victims of malice. If you really can persuade yourself that physical pain is nothing to you, that emotional stress can't touch you, that's quite a defensive weapon.

And if Stoicism can turn the chill of age into the warmth of experience, friendship, and joyous memory, that's quite an achievement. The older I get, the more I appreciate old Seneca's wisdom about time (not that it's in such short supply but that we're such bad managers of it). But I continue to question his passive compliance with crazy Nero. Is that Stoicism or impotent resignation? Surely there's a difference.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is on our plate today. "Is the pious or holy [or, ethically speaking, the right or the good] beloved by the gods because it is holy [right. good], or holy (etc.) because it is beloved?" Euthyphro didn't grasp the issue. Do we? Either God's not the source of good, or good's good only nominally and arbitrarily. Nigel implies there's something destructive or Hobson-ish about this choice, but isn't it just blindingly clear that pole A is the one to grab? Well no, it won't be to many students. A good discussion is called for.

"Deontology," a scary word for a scary over-devotion to "duty." Or so I'll say, today.

And, time permitting, I'll put in some good words for both Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill's respective versions of consequentialist utilitarian hedonism. Let's not choose, let's pick cherries.

Finally, the bonus topic: Robert Nozick's Experience Machine. Fire it up, we'll see if anybody really wants to step inside.

I'm "flipping" my classes these days, which practically means less of my "content" explicated during the precious minutes of classtime (though it's still right here for the taking, as always) and more group discussion. I like my DQs today, especially Do you think the only thing preventing you from being good is the fear of divine retribution for being bad? Or do you think that to be good one must simply believe in goodness and reciprocity ("Do unto others" etc.)?

In other words, Julia Sweeney, Why aren't the godless all "rushing out and murdering people"?

And, Is it better to be a sad but wise Socrates than to be a happy but ignorant fool?

Don't worry, be happy is not too far off the path of wisdom, is it?


  1. Mary Claire Dutton7:24 PM CST

    Quiz Questions
    1. What does Aristotle say poetry is like?
    2. What question does Plato raise but never answer?
    3. What is the name of Umberto Eco's thriller?

    1. 8
      1. science
      2. How is it that we take a sort of pleasure in this artificial stimulation of pity and fear when it is positively unpleasant to feel either of these things in real life?
      3. The Name of the Rose

    2. Section #9
      1. Science
      2. How doe we take pleasure in this artificial simulation of pity and fear when it is positively unpleasant to feel either of these things in real life?
      3. The Name of the Rose

  2. Mary Claire Dutton7:27 PM CST

    Discussion Question Answer
    I Sharply disagreed with a biology teacher about Evolution but he was a good teacher.

  3. 8 2-21 AQQ
    1. What is First Philosophy?
    2.What two subjects did Aristotle say fit in the same bag?
    3.Is it clear why Aristotle thought they fit in the same bag?
    4.What is Aristotles main thought on First Philosophy?
    5.What is the most general concept of all?
    6.What would one might think at first about being?
    7.Does Aristotle think that there is only one fundamental type of existence?
    8.Why does he think this?
    9.What does Aristotle say about all other types of existence?
    10.Did Aristotle think that First Philosophy require any special techniques of rational insight.
    11.The metaphysician is therefore a sort of what?
    12.One who studied first philosophy was what according to Aristotle?
    13.What area of inquiry overlaps with First Philosophy?
    14.What can logic be defined as?

    1. 2. astronomy and theology
      3. no
      5. being or existence

    2. Section #9
      1. What comes after physics
      2. Astronomy and Theology
      3. No
      4. That it deals with whatever sort of knowledge is most required for the attainment of wisdom.
      5. Existence
      6. That being is indeed so general a concept that it is impossible to say anything specific about it.
      7. No
      9. That all other forms of existences are parasitic.
      10. No
      11. Super Scientist
      12. Above the natural philosopher
      13. Logic
      14. Science of reasoning and proof

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. 8
    DQ Responses
    1. I am afraid of death, and not just my own but of others I care for. I counter that fear by trying to enjoy everyday.
    3. I have experienced the deaths of people close to me. I used to care for seniors. And although they weren't technically family, caring for them made them almost closer than family. Over the years, I became accustomed to saying good bye to them when their time came. I came to recognize death as a natural cycle, and it has less of a tragic effect on me.
    4. I don't know if I believe in an afterlife. If i did I think it would be wary and unsure of it. No one really knows whats on the other side of that door. I do care about leaving others behind, it's a double edged sword I think.
    10. I most definitely think I waste a lot of time. Technology is such a wonderful convenience, but that the same time a terrible distraction. Some days just fly by without notice because they are spent in front of a screen. I think I can do better to make the most of my time by unplugging a little bit more.

  6. 10
    DQ responses
    2. Throughout my academic career, i have rarely disagreed with my teachers, because i respect them. However, just because they are my teacher, doesnt mean what they are teaching will be correct. This is an imperfect world.
    3. This is a very deep question, however i think the answer is simple. All the universe is is change and change only, in which it constantly "changes".
    6. Logic is a valuable tool in the sense that it can be used in every situation thinkable. Having the correct logic will tell you not to put your hand on a stove, or kill your best friend, or jump off a cliff.
    10. Although I hate to admit it, i believe i can be better with my time; i tend to waste a lot of it. Structure is key to efficiently using your time, in which a job (something i dont have at the moment) will greatly affect this.

  7. 9 - Stone Jones

    Alt Quiz Questions
    1. How did Aristotle define deduction?
    2. According to Aristotle, what do people of 'superior refinement and active disposition' believe the aim of life is?

    Here's a Monty Python video where they use Aristotelian logic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJWk_HkCyPU

    1. 2.They believe the aim of life is to have a successful career in public life

  8. 2-23 AQQ
    LH Ch 4
    1.What is the name of Ludwig Wittgenstein's book?
    2.What did he say in it?
    3.What is the idea of that quote?
    4.What do most of us do when we imaging our own death according to Epicurus?
    5.Did Epicurus think that we consist of atoms?
    6.How did Epicurus think he could cure his followers of their fear of death?
    7.Did Epicurus think we would be punished in the afterlife?
    8.What did Epicurus say in his epitaph?
    9.Epicurus believed that could memories could ease what?
    10.What other groups thought of philosophy as a type of therapy?
    11.Which group were renowned for their lessons in how to be psychologically tough in the face of unfortunate events?
    LH 5
    12.What is one benefit in living your life well?
    13.Why do so many people become preoccupied with trivial work?
    14.What happened to Seneca in AD 41?

  9. Clayton Thomas (10)10:21 AM CST

    2/21: DQ
    1. I would probably be more inclined to go to Plato's Academy because I prefer Plato's philosophy of questioning everything and deducing answers as opposed to Aristotle's philosophy similar to that of Plato's but introduces a parallel with reason and what would be the early science as we call it today, which is partially based on accepted truths, but not proven truths.

    2. Maybe not a teacher per say, but I have sharply disagreed with people whom I admire.

    3. In this Universe, change is about the only thing that is constant (from a second to second basis to a year to year basis) nothing is ever exactly the same with respect to yourself. I wouldn't that this is paradoxical because although change itself not constant thing, but things can constantly be changing.

    4. I believe Aristotle's God, the Unmoved Mover, is more plausible because in this sense he has no emotional connection between the humans he guides and himself; therefore, he can move the world and the people as he see's to be in the best interest rather than to guide people in different direction based upon their beliefs and affairs as the other God would do. In this time, the other God seems more compatible with this world only because he provides that interest or companionship humans desire.

    5. I think forms stand apart as purely ideas which these things can then take that basic form of whatever and apply it with alterations to become the thing that it is. For example, no human is the same but we all the same underlying form of human.

    6. Logic is an extremely valuable tool, some may even say invaluable, to have. It distinguishes truths and falsities, right from wrong, and keeps the everyday person doing what is right rather than what feels right. Logic suppresses the id inside of us so we don't end up dead or in prison.


    8. I would say that this is false, because for one to be excellent and become good one must first know what excellence is in order to achieve that status of excellence and goodness.

    9. Art can be both. When approaching art you must first look at as a whole (the big cave) then in its multiple pieces (the smaller caves in the big cave) to discover its meaning, but once you reach that epiphany it can then shed some truth or light on whatever it is the art was trying to show in the first place.

    10. I personally love comedies and laugh at them all time, and I could see how Plato would say that these comedies can sometimes be a bit dark but the way the comedians spin them into such a tone as to make us laugh is in a way a bit cynical.

    11. I would say it doesn't imply less interest in "thoughts of the heavens, but offer a different view of how to perceive heavenly things.

  10. 10

    1. I would rather attend Aristotle's Lyceum. Aristotle seems to have a much more scientific approach to things, and that is how I like to approach things.

    2. I probably have since just becausse we may admire someones personality or knowledge of things, often times people are biased by their own beliefs and as a student you need to be able to tell when a teacher is really telling the true, or what they consider the truth.

    3. Its hard to say if change is the only constant in the universe, but I do belief that change is constant and it does seem paradoxical.

    4. As someone that doesn't believe in supernatural entities I can't say that either one sounds more plausible than the other. I would say though that our universe follows certain rules, which many times can be proved by physics and other sciences.

    5. When I think of a form, I think of a physical presence, such as the form of something is in the shape of so and so. I wouldn't really consider colors a form, but light itself can be in the form of a wave, or have particle like properties, and these properties portray a visual as a side effect.

    6. The value of logic is that it gets you closer to being more knowledgeable about the world around you.

    7. I would say that to excel at the art of living is to understand that humans aren't perfect and that we make mistakes. None of all start out as privileged as one another either, and for some people achieving certain goals can take longer and be harder for others. Just try to tell yourself that the experiences are valuable and to not be stressed by the amount of time that it takes if you are doing the best you can.

    8. I think that it is a false dichotomy, as infants we have done things that people may have considered good or bad, but we did not have the awareness to really understand what our actions meant.

    9. The meaning of art is whatever you perceive it is. I wouldn't say that it has a specific meaning.

    10. I wouldn't say that. I think laughing at comedies makes people more happy in life because it shows them that yes our lives can suck sometimes, but we can all relate to this and laugh about how humans really aren't that special and we don't have as much control over life as we would like too.

    11. I think Aristotle was trying to go with a more observational approach to understand the meaning of things, which meant he had to set aside what everyone else has told him and the traditional way of thinking that was popular in that culture.

  11. Caroline Pyles12:53 PM CST

    Discussion Question Answers DR 12:

    1. Plato's academy, my own views align much more to his anyways.
    2. Yes.
    3. Paradoxical yes, but it's true.
    4. Aristotle's god seems more plausible today.
    5. Not everything is an idea. Things are things and ideas are things.
    6. Logic should help you understand the world.
    7. Living YOUR best life and not trying to live the life of others is the "art of living" in my opinion. Satisfying yourself should be your goal.
    8. We are not born knowing what is good or bad, philosophizing is trying to understand the universe and why we are here, not necessarily to "better" ourselves.
    9. There is no one meaning behind art, the point is that it is subjective.
    10. That just doesn't even make sense.
    11. Understanding things we can physically see is more important than understanding things we really never can comprehend.

    Alternate discussion question:
    Should we even be trying to understand things that don't affect us?

    Alternative quiz question:
    Happiness is what kind of degree?

    1. happiness is a secondary degree

  12. 10- D.Q. Responses

    1.) I would rather attend Aristotle's Lyceum because to me Aristotle's philosophy has greater sense in it than that of Plato's.

    2.) I have, due to the fact we admire someone does not neglect the fact we can challenge their views and teachings.

    3.) I believe change is constant, but not in the sense that it is the only constant in the universe.

    4.) I believe a god who is more interested to human affairs is more plausible, with the fact of free will. This god seems more compatible with our world today due to afterlife consequences based on our earthly actions.

    5.) Forms are sets of characteristics and ideals attached to an object.

    6.) The value of logic is what you gain though it throughout your life in form of knowledge.

    7.) To excel at the art of living is being able to continue on even at your lowest point and continue to strive for something better for yourself and others around you.

    8.) I believe it is false because one cannot achieve excellence, but maybe on another point, Aristotle may have meant that by the act of trying to achieve excellence (even though is impossible) we can be better.

    9.) I believe art can be a source of light and truth depending on what we take from it.

    10.) I don't believe laughing at comedies makes us cynical. laughter is the objective within comedies and increases our well being.

    11.) I think Aristotle's study of earthly things includes the heavens above us (astronomy). Study of earthly things could also imply on human nature in relation to afterlife effects.

  13. DQ's section 9
    1. Aristotle's lyceum, just because of the walking and teaching which sounds more enjoyable.
    2. Yes. However it didn't change the relationship at all and we both still had a respect for each other.
    3. Day to day i wouldn't say change is the only constant, but i guess in the long run that would be true. Yes that statement is a little paradoxical but its the idea of change not actually whats changing.
    4. The great mover makes more sense to me and seems more reasonable than a good involved in everyone's lives.
    5. The form is a part of the object not it's own thing per say
    6. Logic is being able to reason and critical think which is super important.
    7. The art of living is trying to reach the good life or being a good person. i think a wise and virtious person is living this good life.
    8. Yes, you must know what the good is to become it in a sense. How else do you know what you're shooting for.
    9. I think art is the peering out of the cave or a look into light and truth
    10. No the point of comedies is to laugh why not enjoy them
    11. No, you can know the truth is down on earth with us, wonder what's up there in the heavens

  14. 10- discussion responses 02/21/2017
    1. Aristotle's lyceum, I'd like to hear more of what he has to say.
    2. I have never sharply disagreed with a teacher that I greatly admired. I've always been on the same page and tried to give respect.
    3. I definitely believe that change is constant, but I'm not sure if I think it's the only constant in the universe. However, it is greatly paradoxical.
    4. The one who is personally interested in everyone's affairs an cares about people, that's what I choose to believe in. I think this God is more compatible with the world as we know it as well.
    5. I think forms are in things.
    6. The value of logic is that it requires you to think in different ways and think for yourself, it helps you gain knowledge.
    7. A person can excel in the art of living by doing what makes them happy, standing up for what they believe in, and genuinely caring about and helping the people around them. They can excel in the art of living by making a difference.
    8. You are taught what is good as you grow up, and you are brought up to be good or bad based on what you learn and the people you surround yourself with. You don't know how to be good until you are taught.
    9. To me, art is a little bit of both. It's a way of expression and it shows beauty, but it can also be a "cave within a cave" in the sense that it conveys hidden meanings and you have to dig deep to find the meaning, it can enlighten you.
    10. No, I don't think that laughing at comedies makes you any of those things.
    11. Not necessarily, it can be a little bit of both. You may already have a strong belief system and knowledge of the heavens and just want to broaden your horizons and learn something else.

  15. Dalis de la Mothe2:25 PM CST

    What do you see as the value of logic?
    *logic is impartial to human emotion which is why I consider it so valuableasy. A fact is a fact. You can't argue that it's not true. Logically we know that there is oxygen in the air because we breath that is the impartial part of logic that is needed in our world

  16. Anonymous2:28 PM CST

    Maddy Russell 10
    1. What did Aristotle regard poetry as?
    2. What did Aristotle think marked men from other creatures?

  17. Dalis de la Mothe2:29 PM CST

    Have you ever sharply disagreed with a teacher whom you nonetheless deeply admired?
    * Of course. In highschool I had a brilliant intelligent teacher whom I admired in attitude and intelligence. However, he was extremely religious and he let that cloud his judgement, I still adore this man today but we differed in opinion. Nothing I do can change that

  18. Dalis de la Mothe2:35 PM CST

    Is change the only constant in the Universe? Is that paradoxical?
    * yes and in a way yes. Things change. As we know it's true that you never step in the same river twice, the world keeps spinning and the days change, the phases of the moon change. The stars change The stars change thier position in the night sky. This is a constant in our world. So it could be said that this also a paradox because how can change be constantly? Well it is not the change itself that is constant but the fact that it does change is. Either side has plenty of argument so either is fine

  19. Dalis de la Mothe2:40 PM CST

    Do you agree with Plato that "laughing at comedies makes us cyncial, shallow and ignoble"?
    * if I find the quote humorous in itself does that count as an agreement? Someone once said that source of comedy is great sadness and pain. So yes I agree. We find humor the horrible things that happen in life as a copping mechanism, but there isn't anything wrong with that.

  20. Dalis de la Mothe3:06 PM CST

    Would you rather attend Plato's Academy or Aristotle's Lyceum? Why?
    *Plato's academy. Mostly because he is my favorite philosopher!:)

  21. 10
    -given that creation and evolution revolve around two different time frames, which one do you believe is true?
    -Do you believe Aristotle's ideas about God are true?

  22. Section 8
    DQs for 02/23/17

    Have I ever had a teacher I sharply disagree with but very much admire?
    Yes, I'd say I have. Being from a very conservative little town, most teachers I had in school did not think the same way I did/do. I have had teachers who really know their subject inside and out and who will take time to make sure you understand, even if it takes forever. But, these same teachers are pro-life/anti-choice, homophobic, and many times blatantly sexist. I don't admire their personal beliefs, but they were good teachers of their subjects. However, these days I'm starting to wonder if they actually were good teachers... their bigotry probably affected their teacher in some way. I just may not have noticed it because I have a lot of privilege.

    The most plausible sort of god? I would say the great "mover" is the most plausible to me. A god that is over things in a more general sense than down to each and every individual.

    Is logic valuable? Yes, I think it's incredibly valuable. It helps one make decisions based on the information around him/her. It keeps people rational.

    Can a person excel in the art of living? That's hard to answer... I feel like excelling is different for everyone. We all have different standards. For me, excelling in the art of living would be happiness for myself, feeling fulfilled in everything I do, and making a better world for everyone. So yes, I think there's a way to do it. We just might not all agree on how.

    I think we are taught what good is in order to understand how to be good. But I think we also have sort of a gut instinct on what is good and band. To a certain extent, good is taught. And to an extent it is sensed.

    Studying earthly things meaning less interest in the heavens? No, I think you can be very interested in the heavens, but just choose to focus your studies on earthly things. It doesn't mean you have less of an interest, necessarily.

  23. Discussion question responses feb 23
    1. I am absolutely afraid of death. It could happen at any moment, and it could be the most painful thing I ever experience. It could, and probably will be, utterly terrifying.
    2. No.
    3. No.
    4. I don't know how an afterlife could be painful if we don't have the neurons to process pain.
    5. Not really sure. I am not scared of the afterlife, I am scared of the actual process of dying.
    6. Things you can make a plan to change, you can probably change. If it is up to someone else, you probably cannot change it.
    7. Yes.
    8. I think you should be calm in regards to small things, but being upset at certain things, like the systematic oppression of marginalized groups of people, is justified.
    9. Cicero
    10. Yes, I waste a lot of time. I should change what I am doing now and try to be productive.
    11. Yes.

    Alternate discussion questions:
    1. If you are not afraid of dying, why? How?
    2. How can you change your life to be your most productive self?
    3. If there is no afterlife, why are we here?
    4. If there was a confirmed afterlife, would you change how you live your daily life?

  24. Devin Willis10:58 PM CST

    Devin Willis-8
    1. I am afraid of death because I feel like my life is worth too much and I haven't fully lived out my life yet.
    2. No I am not.
    3. I have experienced multiple people die within my family and you have no choice but to handle it because life moves on regardless.
    4. I do believe your afterlife could be painful but more so traumatizing because of the harsh and cruel life you had on Earth.
    6. I feel as if anything can be changed or comprised in some certain way.
    8. Once you realize life is going to be hard regardless of who you are or what you do, then you will be able to control your emotions no matter how big or little.
    10. I don't waste too much time because I plan my days out and create a to-do list for each day.
    11. Yeah

  25. Clayton Thomas (10)10:49 AM CST

    DQ 2/23:

    1. I was afraid of dying or what would happen to those close to me after I die, but after studying philosophy for even just this short period of time I have come to change that idea because being afraid of the unknown and the unchangeable is a futile effort which I no longer wish to fall victim to. Instead I choose to enjoy the time I have and make the most of it. The best way to counter the fear is to accept that it is unchanging and don't let it bother you.

    2. More or less. I am not one for always buying the newest thing or always having the fanciest clothes, but I do like to stay somewhat up to date on these things.

    3. Yes, my grandfather was the closest person to me that has passed, and I was pretty sad at first. But overtime I've accepted that he's gone and I should make the most out of myself in order to show the things and life lessons he has taught me.

    4. I personally don't believe in the possibility of a painful afterlife, simply because I'm not really convinced that there is an afterlife. Once you are gone, you are gone. No more pain. I do care about the lives of those who survive me, and I also consider this more important than the latter because, just as above with my grandfather, those who survive me will take the knowledge I gave and live with it. I would only hope that they can make a good life out of it.

    5. I consider Epicurus's disbelief kind of an evasion of death, because if there is an afterlife then do you really die? I consider it a little mortifying because I personally do not want to live forever. I want to live long, but not forever.

    6. Well, sometimes they are obvious, like you can't make a skeleton breath, but sometimes they aren't so obvious. These things can be tackled one of two ways, don't try and change it or fight for it and see what happens. It's a bit of a life experience, and probably a humbling at that.

    7. I believe that they are dead on in saying this, it's just sometimes to hard to control the emotions, but we have complete control over them.

    8. It seems to be easier to get worked up over larger things because you can get more people behind you in the cause, however we should be equally calm in the face of both assuming we can't change them.

    9. I believe Epicurus did, simply because I cannot get behind the idea of having an eternal living soul.

    10. I feel like I do waste a lot of time, and I could probably start making the most of time by getting outside more, travelling more, meeting new people, and just enjoying the experience.

    11. I definitely believe one can be Stoic without becoming heartless and inhumane. Just because you feel you should ignore what you can;t change, you can still put full effort into those you can change.

  26. Dalis de la Mothe11:05 AM CST

    Are you afraid of death, of dying, or of any other aspect of human mortality? Why or why not? What's the best way to counter such fear?
    *I don't fear dying. Seems kind of pointless considering that it's going to happen eventually. I don't know be pessimistic?

  27. Dalis de la Mothe11:07 AM CST

    Are you epicurean in any sense of the word?
    *In the modern sense of the word I guess that you could say that I am. I love all the finer things in life and splurging to make myself happier

  28. Dalis de la Mothe11:10 AM CST

    Have you experienced the death of someone close to you? How did you handle it?
    *No not since I was too young to understand and fully comprehend death an even then I didn't really react.

  29. Dalis de la Mothe11:12 AM CST

    How do you know, or decide, which things you can change and which you can't?
    *Common sense. I mean I can try with all might to stop the days from changing but it doesn't mean it will happen just because I try.

  30. Dalis de la Mothe11:14 AM CST

    Who had the better idea about why we shouldn't be afraid to die, Epicurus or Cicero?
    *Epicurus, He's just great.

  31. 10- D.Q Responses:

    1.) I am not afraid of dying because I have no control over it and agree with Circero's view on the soul lives forever.

    2.) I am an epicurean in the actual sense Epicurius meant for it to be- that need to live your life moderate, that giving into greedy appetites would just result in a never ending cravings.

    3.) I have, as everyone has, just have to deal with it the most sensible way possible.

    4.) I certainly believe afterlife can be painful due to actions and choices made in time on earth in life we choose to live deciding where we will finally end up.

    5.) evasion of it, because it allows people to live their life carelessly without thought of afterlife consequences. he teaches to make most of time on earth because their is nothing in afterlife. I believe soul lasting forever to be consoling in death, but only depending on how you live your life, which reflects on where you will spend eternity.

  32. DQ
    section 8
    1.Yes only when I think about it usually you don't think about death when your mind is occupied. The best way to not fear death is to spend time with friends and family. That way your mind is occupied.
    2.Yes I am I have a desire to have the best of everything.
    3.Yes although it wasn't a person, I thought of the happy moments I spent with them, and cherished the time I spent with them.
    4.No I don't. Yes. I care more about family and then friends, because the I have more of a connection with them.
    5.I think it is the solution of it.I thought it was consoling because I can rest in peace.
    6. Well how I live my life I can change, however unexpected events like a car accident I can't change or prevent.
    7.Yes because how you react to the event can determine the outlook.
    8.I would have to say the small things. Of course, trying to be calm in case of both cases.
    10. Sometimes I would, and the best way to use my time wisely is to see what benefits and what doesn't.
    11.Yes it is possible simply just be a little lose.

    Alternate Quiz Questions
    1.What kind of philosphy did Epicurus believe in?
    2.Where was Epicurus born?

  33. 10 DQ

    1. I guess I do not fear as much myself dying as I do with others that I care about. Once you witness someone dying at a very young age that you are close to it makes it seem like death can easily happen to anyone at anytime, and how much you care about that person is not something that can change the unpredictability of death. I am much more accepting of it now though because you can't always control other people's fate, especially when their fate comes from an unexpected source. This understanding of how little control we have over death and knowing that we don't experience death, only the pain that leads to it is I feel, a better way of accepting death.

    2. I would say that I am in the middle. I do set big goals for myself because I do feel that I am capable of achieving them. On the other hand I do have certain habits that relate to a simplistic life since I am a frugal person, and it doesn't always take a lot for me to be content with my life.

    3. I have experienced the death of someone close to me and It is a very surreal experience. It took a long time to get over it, and the feeling of loss of that person never really goes away. I handled it by talking to other people about my experience to make it seem more real. It also helped me to really grasp on to how I could not have prevented their death because I did not know how it could be caused. Last of all I am thankful that I have at least memories of the person even though they are no longer alive anymore and that I got to spend the time that I could with them.

    4. I don't believe in an afterlife, just the life we have now.

    5. I think it as a rational idea and it is a good approach to accepting death. I guess ultimate mortality would be interesting, until everyone on earth dies and you are all alone.

    6. I have to determine how capable I am of performing the tasks to cause that change, and to know the risks involved.

    7. I think we can make an impact on the events around us depending on what they are. I do think that we can control how we feel sometimes even though it may be difficult.

    8. I depends on how much it will affect my life and in what way that it will. For example, if it rains sometimes I may be frustrated if I forgot an umbrella or if my phone gets destroyed. If a president wants to take my rights away or the rights of others I will be more than frustrated because there is a possibility of it ruining my life or others, because we are not considered as deserving.

    9. I agreed more with Epicurus's philosophy.

    10. I have wasted time in the past, the best way to make the most our time is to work towards what will make you happy about how your life is.

    11. I think it is possible, I believe that kind of life could make a very happy person, and someone that other people will like to be around because being around people that are negative all the time because they are always stressed out because they are having trouble grasping control over their life can be difficult, because the people we hang out with tends to affect our outlook on life. That's why it's good to not be around negative people too much because it might make you angry or depressed.

  34. 10
    1. I guess death and dying does kind of freak me out. I believe in a higher power and I believe in heaven, but the idea of not existing on this earth or someone I love no longer existing on this earth is very strange for me to think about.
    2. I like the finer things in life, as most people do, but I am not realistic and only spoil myself occasionally. I tend to be a more moderate person on a day to day basis.
    3. Yes, I have experienced the death of more than one person that is close to me. I don't think you ever fully get over it, or at least I haven't ever fully gotten over it. I think you just learn how to cope with it and keep moving.
    4. I do believe in the possibility of a painful afterlife, based on how you live your life on Earth. I definitely care about the lives of the ones who survive me, I would hope that they live happy lives and prosper.
    5. I find it consoling, it helps people cope with death.
    6. You have to sit back and think about which things you really want to change, and which things you can deal with staying the same. Some things are out of your control, but if you feel strongly enough about something you can decide to change it.
    7. I do think they were right about controlling your attitude towards events, you can make sure to have a positive and upbeat attitude about something if you choose to.
    8. It's easier for me to not get worked up about small things. However, I think it would make things a lot easier if people were better at handling some situations and taking a step back to think about things before overreacting.
    9. Epicurus.
    10. No, I don't think I have too much time, in fact I wish I had more. I could make the most of the time I have by working towards my goals and taking advantage of every helpful situation i'm in.
    11. Yes, I think it is possible, you just have to have the right mindset.

  35. #10
    1. The only thing I'm afraid of dying is the pain I might cause to the people that cares about me. Other than that, the actual dying part, I'm not afraid about it because of the reason Socrates mentions. How could I be afraid of something I don't know about?
    2. I don't think so, because I believe in order to make the world a better place, we should think and work hard to achieve something beyond us or build a base for the future thinkers to continue the work.
    3. Yes, When my grandfather and Uncle died I experienced how the people around me viewed death. I felt like an outsider because I didn't feel sadness the way most of them did. In order to understand what I felt was the problem with me, I spent 30 minutes to an hour each day for 2 weeks playing a sad scenario in my head and how it made me feel.
    4. Although I'm a christian, I struggle with the idea of "Hell". I believe that if we see God as our father, I don't think he will sentence us to an eternity of pain. That conflicts with the idea of being a parent, which is to always protect their child and when they make a mistake to forgive them. I do care the people still alive. I don't want them to mourn my death. I wish there would be music and dancing at my funeral. Since I only know of life, right now I would say life is more important than death because we've the chance to make a difference.
    5. To think there is no life after death for me is a little depressing. But if one truly believe there is only life and nothing more, I think it will make people live a reserved life when they are young and become reckless towards the end because the thought of this is all there is to life will have an effect on their life.
    6. The first thing is we've to denying the existence of destiny because if we believe everything that will happen has already been determined then we can't control anything. We can decide what we can control by asking ourselves, is what happened the work of mother nature or man made. Anything man made, we can usually control.