Up@dawn 2.0

Friday, September 20, 2019

Quizzes Sep 24 & 26

Midterm report presentations begin Thursday, Kathryn's volunteered to kick us off with a solo report (stay tuned for her summary & quiz). We'll finalize our midterm reports info in class Tuesday. As we ease into cooler autumnal weather, bear in mind the possibility of taking us outdoors if your report conduces to that.



Image result for under construction

Sep 24, E 5-6
ch5
1. How did the Epicureans depart from the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions? 52

2. The standards of meaning and truth are what, for Epicurus? 55

3. Epicureans believe that our beliefs about the physical world ought to be recognized as true or false how? (p. 59) Ed

4. What alternatives to materialism appeared between the 17th and 18th centuries? Pg. 63 (Max)

DQs

  • Do you agree that the mind requires an animal body? 53 What do you think Epicurus would say about AI?
  • Is the idea of a "distributed and corporeal" soul more appealing to you than an immaterial, dualistic soul in uncertain relation to the body/brain? Why or why not?
  • Dualism holds that the conscious mind is incorporeal, or non-physical. Neo-materialism holds that brain activity is the cause of the conscious mind. What do you think; is there more to you than neural activity? Ed
  • Following up on Ed's question: what kinds of experience do you find difficult to attribute to neural activity? Is there a parallel to the objections some lodge against empiricism, that matter could not possibly do x/y/z? -To which the reply must be: why not? 

ch6
1. Epicurean gods have no what? 69

2. What is the Epicurean hope, with regard to the human tendency to invoke or solicit divine intervention in our lives? 72

3. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? Pg. 73 (Max)

4. What does Epicurean philosophy offer non-believers? (p. 80) Ed

DQs
  • Is belief in god(s) natural but mistaken, and explainable? 70 (Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell supports this view...)
  • What do you think of Spinoza's god? 74
  • Baron d’Holbach said that theology was “ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.” (p. 75.) If that is the case, what are the implications for religions based on a belief in a creator God that is involved with the affairs of men?
  • Descartes believe that souls did not play a role in maintaining life, do you agree or disagree? (60) Allison
  • Are there cultural and social benefits from participating in religion, whether or not there is actually a God? Ed

Sep 26, E 7-9. Garden wisdom @dawn - LISTEN
ch 7
1. Any human who can't uphold a contractual agreement to behave justly should be treated how, said Epicurus?

2. (Lotsa good questions posted in comments, too many to copy-&-paste.)

3.

DQs
  • Is there anything to be said for Plato's idea that people should be designated gold, silver, and bronze? 82 In a genuinely utopian society, would social (or "natural") class exist at all?
  • Do you agree that "all societies evolve"? 84 Do some de-volve? How about ours, at present?

ch 8
1.  How do ancient and contemporary ethics fundamentally differ? 92

2.

3.

DQs
  • Must mind and body forever "succumb to the 'stress and strain of age'"? 92 Or will medical science one day "defeat" aging (if not death)? Are the Transhumanists crazy?
  • Do you employ "sober calculation" in charting your pleasures? 94 Do you think you always should? Or is it sometimes okay to surrender to the spirit of Dionysus?


ch 9
1. Different people inhabit what, according to atomists and Epicureans?

2.

3.

DQs
  • If our ordinary "notions... may not apply to the fundamental particles discovered by physics," 110 would that be an objection to Epicurean atomism?
  • "Man is not the measure of all things." 111 Should an Epicurean be so quick to repudiate Protagoras? If we're not the measure(rs) of our own happiness, who or what is? (But: does "man" mean  each of us, individually, or all of us, collectively?)




==
This is out now, do we want to read it as a class?
How to Be an Epicurean audiobook cover art
==
My "Best Man," channeled by Lynn Redgrave:





40 comments:

  1. Maxwell McConnell
    Quiz Questions for Catherine Wilson’s Epicureanism
    Ch 5-6
    1. What alternatives to materialism appeared between the 17th and 18th centuries? Pg. 63
    2. What did Epicurus maintain as his reasoning for the existence of the God(s)? Pg. 70
    3. How did Epicureans believe that God(s) were perceived? Pg. 71
    4. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? Pg. 73
    Ch 7
    1. What was Plato’s only egalitarian initiative? Pg. 84
    2. Lucretius argue that the human race would not have survived if not for what? And therefore, justice did not exist until_____? Pg. 87
    Ch 8
    1. According to Epicurus, what constitutes a pleasant life? Pg. 94
    2. What were Epicurus’ and Lucretius’ thoughts, respectively, on marriage? Pg. 98
    3. For Lucretius, what is indispensable in the cosmic scheme as a force of reconstruction and renovation? Pg. 96
    4. What made Epicureanism damnable in the eyes of the church? Pg. 99
    Ch 9
    1. What is foreign to the contemporary understanding of why scientific enquiry is valuable for Epicureans? Pg. 112
    2. Who insisted that Epicurean tradition assigned a higher value to “pleasures of the intellect, of the feeling and imagination, and of the moral sentiments” above the pleasures of “mere sensation”? Pg. 116
    3. How was tranquility achieved by the Epicureans? Pg. 117

    ReplyDelete
  2. As well Levi and I were hoping to have scored the first to go volunteer spot, but as we missed the opening, but we'll also gladly go second.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chap. 5 Quiz Questions:

    1. How do soul atoms confer consciousness? (p. 54)

    2. What does Epicurus mean when he says that the hallucinations of madmen and dreams of sleepers are true? (p. 57)

    3. Epicureans believe that our beliefs about the physical world ought to be recognized as true or false how? (p. 59)

    4. What is dualism? (p. 63)

    Chap. 5 Discussion Question: Dualism holds that the conscious mind is incorporeal, or non-physical. Neo-materialism holds that brain activity is the cause of the conscious mind. What do you think; is there more to you than neural activity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I lean towards neutral monism but it does seem like a somewhat abstract view to me.

      Delete
  4. Chap. 6 Quiz Questions

    1. What is the key to Epicurean theology? (p. 70)

    2. What do the Epicureans hope will overcome the human tendency to believe that gods are involved in human life? (p.72)

    3. What is “God,” according to Kant? (p. 78)

    4. What does Epicurean philosophy offer non-believers? (p. 80)

    Chapter 6 Discussion Questions:

    1. Baron d’Holbach said that theology was “ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.” (p. 75.) If that is the case, what are the implications for religions based on a belief in a creator God that is involved with the affairs of men?

    2. Are there cultural and social benefits from participating in religion, whether or not there is actually a God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2. Are there cultural and social benefits from participating in religion, whether or not there is actually a God?

      I have often asked myself this question and the answer I usually come to is yes, there are benefits for those that choose to participate in a religion such as being included in a community with people that share your thoughts and ideas along with having a set of rules and guidelines to live your life by; however, where it gets in the weeds is where most religions tell you to go out and spread the word to those that are "lost." I think that if you choose to follow a religion then that is your independent choice to do but pushing your beliefs onto someone else is only ignorant and distasteful. If you can avoid that then I would generally say that there are benefits for some but not all.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Graham that yes there are available benefits of participating in organized religion. The most prominent that always comes to mind is the social and community aspect. If used correctly it can be a great opportunity to build relationships and expand to have much more than just spiritual benefits. This can also be said for the time I spent in sobriety. Just like religion, sobriety brought people together with a common idea and goal to work towards. AA and NA meetings were a core part of recovery, and allowed me to meet new people, build relationships and have new experiences. Similarly, religion and sobriety have not been a path that I have chosen to continue. I believe that these "organizations" can work, as I've seen it work for some; and for others push them deeper into a hole. The question becomes, "does it do more good than it does bad?", and for that I'm still searching for an answer. If it works for you, hell I'm genuinely happy for you and proud of you. If you give it a solid try and it isn't doing it for you, then take what you've learned and move on.

      Delete
    3. There are definitely some benefits in participating in religion. It can create a community that supports and helps each other. Also, it can help people stay on a moral path, insofar always doing that right thing. But like everything, there is a positive and a negative side. Something cannot be good without having some bad in it. When a community becomes toxic to its members or the message, it cannot be considered good anymore. I will take an extreme example of this, Jonestown. Where a positive community took a down spiral into a mass-suicide/murder. Now it doesn't have to be that intense. It can just be a community that ostracizes others because that individual or group goes against their teachings and beliefs.

      Delete
    4. I definitely see the community that religion can provide as a big cultural and social benefit. Personally I just wish that this could take place separately from religion in some form.

      Delete
    5. I agree Graham, that anytime someone tries to force an idea upon you, it is done with bad taste. That, however, does not mean one cannot try to show that there is value in a belief. Done correcty, it is a valuabe part of discourse. Allow me to illustrate:

      I personally think MCU movies are poorly done and I do not care to spend money on a ticket for the newest film. But I will not stop anyone from spending their money on a ticket. Yet, when asked why I have so little respect for the franchise, I will explain my reasons and plead my case--all the while recognizing that I cannot force my distaste upon another (and I would not try to) but when given the chance, I will make an argument that will hopefully change your mind.

      I am all for others expressing their ideas and beliefs with the intent to persuade others to their point of view--so long as they recognize that have no way of forcing the other to accept their belief. I see religous evangelism in the same catagory as a political advocacy group, advertisers, or even someone making the case for the best pizza joint in town. Each time, the individual is making an argument that is intended for you to also adopt that idea.

      Delete
    6. Levi, I appreciate your view and agree that this type of dialogue should be advocated among individuals with differing views. This being said, persuasion is where it gets iffy for me. Once a case or argument has been presented and disagreed with or not accepted by the other party (after genuine consideration), the continuation of the argument seems rather distasteful to me. Persuasion is something I struggle with, as I haven't decided if I think it's morally okay to impose beliefs on others.

      Delete
    7. Kellum, I agree with you that imposing your beliefs upon another is wrong, I was advocating that the “imposing” is starkly different from “persuading,” though finding a bright line of the transition is difficult. That being said, I would disagree with the aspect regarding continuing and argument. As a debater, developing arguments is the most crucial part of making a case. There are new applications, additional perspectives, and new knowledge can be added to the discussion. As long as both individuals are open to continuing the discussion, I can foresee it carrying on indefinitely. But both people have to be willing to continue the conversation. Once it becomes clear that one party is no longer interested in continuing, the other should respect that and suspend the discussion. If one party continues to hound the other, this is where I would argue that the party is no longer “persuading” but “imposing” their views. The idea that one has the ability to change the mind of another is (in a way) assuming that you have agency over their opinions. That is problematic on multiple levels. The key to persuading is understanding that one cannot change the mind of another, one can only present a rational case to facilitate the other person to change their mind.

      Delete
  5. Chp 5 QQs:
    3. Science accepts what Epicurean belief about the physical world? (59)
    4. Who famously rejected the idea that the soul was like 'a wind or flame'? (60)

    Chp 6 QQs:
    3. Why is the watchmaker metaphor a poor model for the origin of the world? (77)
    4. Epicurean offers what to nonbelivers? (80)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ch 5 QQ
    According to Lucretius, how are dreams explained? pg 55
    To Epicurus, what is more important reason or senses? pg 57

    Ch 6 QQ
    How does Kant argue the existence of God after Humes' Dialogues? pg 77-78

    What exactly is the Epicurean hope regarding religion and science? pg 72

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ch 5 QQ
    1. How does Epicurus explain particles? (54)

    Ch 6 QQ
    1. Does Spinoza qualify as an Epicurean or a Stoic? (74)

    DQ
    1. Descartes believe that souls did not play a role in maintaining life, do you agree or disagree? (60)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with Descartes due to the fact that the idea of a "mechanical soul" is less attractive of an idea of what the purpose of a soul does. To me that idea is demeaning and is too reductionistic of a premise for such a complex idea.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Graham that it is a fairly demeaning and reductionistic idea, but that doesn't mean that I don't also agree with Descartes. I think that "souls" do play a significant role in our lives, but they are merely extra and life itself is not dependent on the presence of a soul.

      Delete
  8. DQ: Must mind and body forever "succumb to the 'stress and strain of age'"? 92 Or will medical science one day "defeat" aging (if not death)? Are the Transhumanists crazy?
    I think for the time being everyones mind and body must experience the pain and suffering of aging; however, I don't believe that this will be a problem in the future as we can see the average life expectancy increase every century with more advanced technology and medicine.
    I think that eventually someone's going to figure out how to transfer consciousness into a different form that is not limited by biology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The notion of the body and mind not succumbing to the "stress and strain of age" is a hopeful future. Yet even with technology and medicine evolving, we still suffer at an older age. What about dementia and Alzheimer's disease? Even if we could transfer the consciousness, how would this effect that? After witnessing the devastating effects of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, unless science comes up with a cure for this, transferring into a different form will not change this aspect of our consciousness.

      Delete
    2. I agree that it is optimistic to think that humans will avoid the "stress and strain of age" any time soon. Transhumanist ideas certainly make me uncomfortable, but I'm hesitant to describe them as crazy.

      Delete
    3. I have always been intrigued by transhumanism as it allows for creative thinking about what the future may hold for us as a species. The possibilities are endless as we continue to merge the fields of biology, anatomy, and technology. I think these types of ideas are no more crazy than traveling to the moon or having personal touch-screen computers in our pockets used to be. This being said, I do think there will always be some amount of stress and strain on our bodies, no matter how advanced we get.

      Delete
  9. While doing the peripatetic thing this morning, I thought about what Epicurus would think about soul atoms if he met Lt. Commander Data, of Star Fleet. Data is an android with a positronic brain, surely the exemplar for the highest level of artificial intelligence. Data is a self-aware, sentient being who can do everything a human being can do (yes, everything), except for one; he cannot feel emotions. I wonder if this is the difference between humans and machines. Are there soul atoms that provide this ability? And are they corporeal or incorporeal? Interestingly, Data’s evil “brother” Lore can feel emotions. He has a chip that Data lacks that provides this ability. Given this, might not Epicurus, viewing all human events as having a material cause, adopt the neo-materialistic thinking that the soul is simply neural activity?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chapter 5 QQ:
    1.What was Lucretius "definite in his opinion" about? (p.53)

    2.What thought experiment is used to try to discredit the idea "that neuronal organization and activity" are sufficent to explain consciousness? (p.66)

    Chapter 6 QQ:
    1.According to Epicurus, "the gods neither _____ or ______?" (p.69)

    2.What was Baruch Spinoza's "even more radical stance"? (p.74)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ch 7 QQs:
    1. How did Hobbes recharacterize the laws of nature? (88)
    2. How did Lucretius describe the earliest humans (86)

    Ch 8 QQs:
    1. What is Epicurus' balance of pleasure and pain? (94)
    2. The Epicurean theory of a fragile material soul presented a challenge to whom? (99)

    Ch 9 QQs:
    1. What were some benefits of participating in the Epicureans' rites and ceremonies? (113)

    ReplyDelete
  12. DQ. Do you agree that "all societies evolve"? 84 Do some de-volve? How about ours, at present?

    I think that the general trend when it comes to a societies evolution would be that they're going forward or making progress in the right direction, at least in most respects. Even though most societies tend to move forward some can move backwards especially when it comes to trends in legislation. As for our current state in the United States I think it depends on what aspect of society you look at as our society is evolving and devolving simultaneously and I think that if you say that its doing one or the other then you are missing the other side of the coin so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that societies evolve as the people within them grow and flourish. Every society goes through periods of evolution and devolution but I believe that generally most societies are evolving. Our own society is evolving right now its just more difficult to see it while involved.

      Delete
    2. I do agree that society tends to evolve and change with the times. However, I would argue that de-evolution usually has the implication that society is reverting to more primitive form. Even with undesirable trends/policies/events, that in of itself is not indicative of a more primitive society but that those are signs of more complex issues. Though the value of those issue is hard to judge in the thick of it.

      Delete
  13. DQ: Is there anything to be said for Plato's idea that people should be designated gold, silver, and bronze? 82 In a genuinely utopian society, would social (or "natural") class exist at all?

    I think that in our society that designating someone more valuable than others is something that is hard to do and perhaps wrong in most cases, yet a necessary endeavor due to the way our job system is in place. It's wrong because I believe people are a product of their genetics and upbringing as a child, two things that are uncontrollable by said child. Additionally, in a truly utopian society the idea of class would theoretically not exist because the inherent nature of a kind of society like this implies that everything it perfect and just; however, in reality such a thing as this is impossible for as long as there is differing levels of value placed on different roles in society people will view one another as either bronze, silver, or gold.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that setting up a class system is not a move towards a utopian society. I can't say exactly what a utopian society would look like but I feel confident that a social or "natural" class system wouldn't exist.

      Delete
    2. I would have to disagree with the need for a class system as a necessary condition for utopia as well. The mere presence of a social ranking system opens the door for competition, jealousy, cliques, and more. Just by introducing those to the equation, we introduce strife, which then negates the utopian peace. The first and best step towards peace, is recognizing that each person holds a unique position/role, and each position/role is equally valuable.

      Delete
  14. DQ: "Man is not the measure of all things." 111 Should an Epicurean be so quick to repudiate Protagoras? If we're not the measure(rs) of our own happiness, who or what is? (But: does "man" mean each of us, individually, or all of us, collectively?)

    I think that the idea that you aren't allowed to be the judge of whether you are happy or not is about as ridiculous as being the judge of whether you are hot or not, hot being the sensation of an increased temperature making you uncomfortable. With both instances there can be signs that you feel a certain way such as genuine laughter with being happy and you turning red or sweating with being hot; however, one could make the argument that you could appear to feel both of those things and not genuinely feel them. A better example of this is the severely unfortunate scenario of when someone takes their own life and their loved one or friend says, "But they seemed so happy." I believe that the only one that can truly measure your happiness is you and if you need someone else to tell you your state of mind then you aren't going to get very far on your quest for happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ch 7 QQs:
    1. For Epicureans what is the ultimate test of moral and political goodness? (84)
    2. What did the Epicureans realize that their rivals rarely did? (89)

    Ch 8 QQs:
    1. What did Epicurus observe in animals that also applied to humans? (93)
    2. What kind of action did Epicurus recommend if someone was causing you pain? (97)

    Ch 9 QQs:
    1. Rather than ascribing to an "inferiority complex" what would the Epicurean position be? (112)
    2. How was tranquility achieved for the Epicureans? (117)

    ReplyDelete
  16. DQ: Do the Epicureans have a point about death? The notion that there is no need to worry about death while alive. (101)

    This notion about life and death has truly made me stop and contemplate. I have followed something along these lines for the past few years of my life. I see no reason to worry about death and what comes after, since at this point I exist, I am alive. I find the need to take in what I can of the world around me. Even though, a lot of things can be negative, life is extraordinary. The Epicureans, I feel, have a just reason in putting forth this notion of life and death. I also find it quite appealing their notion of how atoms come together and one day will disperse. That notion is oddly comforting.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quiz Questions – Chapter 7

    1. The ancient Greeks felt it was just to have different legal and social status for different categories of people, notably women and slaves. The ancient philosophers were concerned to explain the utility and necessity of these categories, which they regarded as originating from where? (p.83)

    2. The ultimate test for moral and political goodness is what? (p.84)

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the ‘60s and ’70, America appeared to be lurching forward toward a more just society. There was an aggressive social, cultural, and political revolution. Civil rights, women’s rights, consumer and environmental protection, John Lennon’s Imagine. And then dark clouds appeared around 1979, and a reversal began that has led to today’s frightening Orwellian world. It is so easy for older folk who had hope in the ‘70s for better times to be pessimistic and proclaim that the world is going to hell. But if you step back a little, you can find evidence that change gonna come. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in the social and economic justice positions advanced by “progressives.” The youth of America are stepping up and shaming the “establishment” for its positions on gun control and the environment. Look at Greta Thunberg, my new hero. Evolution is a long, non-linear, process. We will have ups and downs, periods where we seem to be evolving and de-volving. MLK said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” We need, I think, to see the world as evolving, because optimism and hope provide a basis for working for a better society, which leads to Eudaimonia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Preach!

      I was giving this very sermon in class yesterday, after several students expressed deep pessimism for the future. Mark Twain said there's nothing sadder than a young pessimist. Change HAS come, and more's coming - change we can believe in, to coin a phrase.

      Delete
  19. CH 7 QQ
    1. According to Epicurus, justice has a single basic function. What is this function? (81)

    CH 8 QQ
    1. Epicureans believe avoiding _____, ______, _____, and _____ is the key to a happy life. (92)

    CH 9 DQ
    1. The Epicurean is always interested in understanding why people believe in things they do, rather than simply dismissing them as wrong and irrational. (111) How do you think this mindset can be attribute to one's happiness?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you employ "sober calculation" in charting your pleasures? 94 Do you think you always should? Or is it sometimes okay to surrender to the spirit of Dionysus?

    Although it is good to surrender to the spirit of Dionysus, the decisions made within that state of mind sometimes haunt us later. The Epicurean thought of "sober calculation" is something I can agree with. On the other hand, sometimes the decisions one makes when surrendered to the spirit of Dionysus, can help us experience life. Whether that experience is negative or positive, one can grow from it. As a result, one should every so once in awhile, surrender themselves to Dionysus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my own life I don't employ "sober calculation" very often in charting my pleasures but I do try to reflect on positive things that happened to me throughout each day but I don't really chart them.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.