Position five does the heavy lifting: gods take thought for individuals. But gods don't define themselves — they get defined by human interpreters. So "aligning with cosmic structure" is operationally aligning with what someone defined. I can't confirm gods intervene in my life. I can confirm people do.
Well, since I don't believe there are any gods, I'm not concerned with that particular position. Aligning with nature, in my reading, means taking seriously what does and does not favor flourishing in the human animal.
Sometimes I wonder if I haven't reached the point where just being alive means my glass is half full. Compared to the vast majority of those who have gone before I am a very lucky person, and as I grow philosophically this becomes more evident, and meaning grows. I am a better person than I was, and there is so much more to become. Goodness! Stay Humble old man. (perhaps I should be more prudent with my posts?)
Henry, good approach, I think. Yes, I regard as being alive and somewhat healthy as the glass being half full. The other half I can fill up myself, for instance with a good Amarone... 🍷
When my spouse died, there was a period of sincere aguish. It finally occurred to me, that the only way to be rid of that state, was if we had never met. The anguish of the NO, that followed that thought, brought a new thought, to be grateful for the time we had. That has over the years, allowed me to be grateful or at least try to be accepting of all that has befallen me, good, bad, or indifferent. The peace that has come from that has greatly settled me.
Important lesson. Freedom intrigues me. Timothy Snyder wrote, “ on Freedom”. Not an easy read. Lots of bookstore reviews milling through requires effort as freedom from or getting out if a Bix is not what freedom becomes as one passes into personal sovereignty I’m trying to follow his course on his substacjm thinking about. His perspective on history seem to understand where we are and how we got here, we may be free to move to good or not good. We need a Pericled
Epictetus emphasizes that moral transformation happens at the cognitive level, by changing our perception of situations and thus the emotions and actions occasioned by those situations. Cognition (here, correctly understanding/labeling the situation we happen to be in) is "upstream" from much of Western moral philosophy, with its focus on justifying the rules under which we then subsume the facts of a given situation (e.g., what's the correct normative standard: utility, universalizable maxims, rational choice as we're facing a veil of uncertainty, etc.). Pushing much of the real moral work upstream is compelling for a philosophy that aims at making us better people: how exactly we justify the moral tuning of our input signal processing chain is less important than actually having a consistent "moral signal processing chain." We've all experienced moral transformations by suddenly becoming aware of morally salient facts that previously we simply didn't notice. Once we see certain forms of discrimination, for example, it's impossible to unsee them. That is much more powerful in terms of changing our conduct than understanding a chain of reasoning according to which certain conduct should be labeled as morally deficient. But eventually the question of standards catches up with us. How exactly should I adjust my moral perception to make it (and me) more just, courageous, and temperate? Measured against which standard? Epictetus and the Stoic tradition before him respond: By aligning your perception with nature, by playing the role that fate assigned to you, by tuning your violin so that it harmonizes with the rest of the orchestra. But how do we do this if we can no longer accept a view of the cosmos as a rational animal, as something that actually contains the standards we're trying to align to? Against the backdrop of today's metaphysics, are our standards not ultimately "up to us" as well?
“our rational minds share with the divine, since reason can only be measured by the soundness of our judgments.” Perhaps the Divine is within us as well, dwelling within our subconscious.
David, yes, though of course it depends on what one means by the divine. Since for me it just means nature, most definitely we are a part of nature and nature is inside us, at all levels.
Position five does the heavy lifting: gods take thought for individuals. But gods don't define themselves — they get defined by human interpreters. So "aligning with cosmic structure" is operationally aligning with what someone defined. I can't confirm gods intervene in my life. I can confirm people do.
Well, since I don't believe there are any gods, I'm not concerned with that particular position. Aligning with nature, in my reading, means taking seriously what does and does not favor flourishing in the human animal.
Sometimes I wonder if I haven't reached the point where just being alive means my glass is half full. Compared to the vast majority of those who have gone before I am a very lucky person, and as I grow philosophically this becomes more evident, and meaning grows. I am a better person than I was, and there is so much more to become. Goodness! Stay Humble old man. (perhaps I should be more prudent with my posts?)
Henry, good approach, I think. Yes, I regard as being alive and somewhat healthy as the glass being half full. The other half I can fill up myself, for instance with a good Amarone... 🍷
When my spouse died, there was a period of sincere aguish. It finally occurred to me, that the only way to be rid of that state, was if we had never met. The anguish of the NO, that followed that thought, brought a new thought, to be grateful for the time we had. That has over the years, allowed me to be grateful or at least try to be accepting of all that has befallen me, good, bad, or indifferent. The peace that has come from that has greatly settled me.
Michael, thank you, that must have been a very difficult experience. I'm glad that your approach, which is truly philosophical, helped.
It continues to as well. Thank you.
Important lesson. Freedom intrigues me. Timothy Snyder wrote, “ on Freedom”. Not an easy read. Lots of bookstore reviews milling through requires effort as freedom from or getting out if a Bix is not what freedom becomes as one passes into personal sovereignty I’m trying to follow his course on his substacjm thinking about. His perspective on history seem to understand where we are and how we got here, we may be free to move to good or not good. We need a Pericled
Epictetus emphasizes that moral transformation happens at the cognitive level, by changing our perception of situations and thus the emotions and actions occasioned by those situations. Cognition (here, correctly understanding/labeling the situation we happen to be in) is "upstream" from much of Western moral philosophy, with its focus on justifying the rules under which we then subsume the facts of a given situation (e.g., what's the correct normative standard: utility, universalizable maxims, rational choice as we're facing a veil of uncertainty, etc.). Pushing much of the real moral work upstream is compelling for a philosophy that aims at making us better people: how exactly we justify the moral tuning of our input signal processing chain is less important than actually having a consistent "moral signal processing chain." We've all experienced moral transformations by suddenly becoming aware of morally salient facts that previously we simply didn't notice. Once we see certain forms of discrimination, for example, it's impossible to unsee them. That is much more powerful in terms of changing our conduct than understanding a chain of reasoning according to which certain conduct should be labeled as morally deficient. But eventually the question of standards catches up with us. How exactly should I adjust my moral perception to make it (and me) more just, courageous, and temperate? Measured against which standard? Epictetus and the Stoic tradition before him respond: By aligning your perception with nature, by playing the role that fate assigned to you, by tuning your violin so that it harmonizes with the rest of the orchestra. But how do we do this if we can no longer accept a view of the cosmos as a rational animal, as something that actually contains the standards we're trying to align to? Against the backdrop of today's metaphysics, are our standards not ultimately "up to us" as well?
Hanno, good question. The answer is still nature, as here: https://bookshop.org/a/80309/9780199265473
and here: https://bookshop.org/a/80309/9780691169163
“our rational minds share with the divine, since reason can only be measured by the soundness of our judgments.” Perhaps the Divine is within us as well, dwelling within our subconscious.
David, yes, though of course it depends on what one means by the divine. Since for me it just means nature, most definitely we are a part of nature and nature is inside us, at all levels.
We should all raise our glasses--half full or not--to such fine essays. Thnx Dr P!
🍻
🍷