HI Massimo, leaving a question for next Sunday's meetup that may actually fall a bit outside of the scope of that one:
Independent of the specific differences between metaphysical systems—such as Stoic immanence versus Christian transcendence—it seems to me that the core issue when comparing Stoic cosmology or theology with the Christian one boils down to whether there is a first cause (a Prime or Unmoved Mover in the Aristotelian sense), or whether, as the Stoics propose, there is an infinite (or perhaps circular) chain of causes. Logically, each of these options seems to correspond to one of the horns of Agrippa’s trilemma, as we discussed recently—inevitably so, I suppose, since there are no other alternatives available!
That being said, if we strip away the "mythical" elements of Christianity and focus purely on metaphysical considerations, what makes one system—say, Stoicism—more persuasive than another, such as the Aristotelian or Christian framework?
I admit I'm not up to date on the latest developments in modern science, but perhaps recent findings offer some clues that might favor one direction over the other?
Demian, we should definitely discuss this at the meetup! But, briefly, I think the major distinction between philosophies of life and religions is that the former use arguments while the latter rely on revelation (either from scripture or directly to a prophet). So it’s a question of reason vs faith. Of course, there are borderline / unclear cases as well. As far as your specific example goes, my inclination is always to go with whatever the latest science says. In this case, neither Aristotle nor the Stoics, but a model based on a Big Bang triggered by a quantum fluctuation. And yes, of course everything, including science, is still subject to Agrippa’s trilemma!
ὦ θεοί! I feel like the television broke, or the film jammed in the sprockets. You really got going there. I was engrossed chomping on popcorn and the episode ended with a major plot twist.
What happens next? You can write a book on this. Very insightful. 😊
😳 It’s a page turner! I was spellbound and the film 🎞️ thread out of the reel slapping away! That’s wonderful news. The reader can tell you have much to say on a subject that’s thread the ages! 👍😊
Massimo, I particularly appreciated this statement: “…ideally, at least—philosophical inquiry is open ended. Just as in science, the inquirer strives to boldly go wherever reason and evidence lead. In the case of theology, by contrast, the conclusion is pre-determined and cannot possibly be contradicted by any argument or evidence”. As an ex secular Buddhist practitioner, my teacher was Stephen Batchelor. He reformulated the Four Noble Truths (which presume faith or belief in unquestionable givens, just like religion) into Four Noble Tasks (empirical practices which follow the data, like philosophy & science). He summarised these tasks as ELSA: Embrace life, Let reactivity be, See reactivity stop, and Actualize a path - https://bit.ly/3i5t1fL . The purpose of this practice is not to strive for enlightenment (a futile endeavour akin to aiming to become a Sage) but to realise “…our full human potential to live intelligently, compassionately and hopefully with wisdom.” Sounds pretty much like Stoicism to me & is another example of the BCE interactions between India & Greece.
Difficult to argue with your chain of thought except the bit about Buddhism. A lot has been mixed with Hindu belief & I am not talking about the Gods of Mythology. It’s the abstract about Atman & Brahma. Buddhas first noble truth is Dukha which is sadness or equivalent to absence of pain (Epicurean). Te second truth is not to have any Desire which can be debated.
Here is my take on the universal God & it’s called GRAVITY. It has created the Cosmos & holds it together & is expanding it with a little tweaking from Relativity. So Newton & Einstein explain all that is known about our universe.
My pet theory of religion is that it is a means of inducing an 'endorphin' high. Do something slightly painful for a long time and the endorphins, etc. kick in and you feel 'God', grace or enlightenment. At least in Zen while there are some silly stories (and some funny ones too) belief is not a big deal.
Sharing in the 'high' may have some utility in terms of group solidarity.
Sit in an uncomfortable posture ('just sitting') for a long time, trying to solve an impossible riddle while someone occasionally wacks ypu with a board...ah!
I do agree that dogma is a typical difference between religions and philosophy, but like all definitions the boundaries are fuzzy.
Appreciated thinking, though “philosophers are in the business...” is not my favorite phrase. I’m also thinking that, for the same reason Ethical Culture qualifies as a religion for tax purposes, so would Stoicism, for example. Time to declare a building dedicated to Stoicism or a cousin thereof?
Well, "philosophers are in the business..." is just a common phrase.
Regarding Ethical, I'm pretty sure it was Adler's explicit decision, way before tax issues might have come out. Not a decision I agree with, I might add.
As for Stoicism, nope, Zeno explicitly said "there will be no temples in the ideal Stoic Republic."
Thx. I don’t know what was on Adler’s mind re tax exemption when he formed Ethical, but coming from a tax exempt synagogue …. Either way, it remains a practice with narrow appeal that might have greater appeal in the modern era without the religion label.
Yes, Ethical remains a practice with a very narrow appeal. The reasons are not entirely clear to me. Someone should be doing a sociological study about this!
HI Massimo, leaving a question for next Sunday's meetup that may actually fall a bit outside of the scope of that one:
Independent of the specific differences between metaphysical systems—such as Stoic immanence versus Christian transcendence—it seems to me that the core issue when comparing Stoic cosmology or theology with the Christian one boils down to whether there is a first cause (a Prime or Unmoved Mover in the Aristotelian sense), or whether, as the Stoics propose, there is an infinite (or perhaps circular) chain of causes. Logically, each of these options seems to correspond to one of the horns of Agrippa’s trilemma, as we discussed recently—inevitably so, I suppose, since there are no other alternatives available!
That being said, if we strip away the "mythical" elements of Christianity and focus purely on metaphysical considerations, what makes one system—say, Stoicism—more persuasive than another, such as the Aristotelian or Christian framework?
I admit I'm not up to date on the latest developments in modern science, but perhaps recent findings offer some clues that might favor one direction over the other?
Thank you!
Demian, we should definitely discuss this at the meetup! But, briefly, I think the major distinction between philosophies of life and religions is that the former use arguments while the latter rely on revelation (either from scripture or directly to a prophet). So it’s a question of reason vs faith. Of course, there are borderline / unclear cases as well. As far as your specific example goes, my inclination is always to go with whatever the latest science says. In this case, neither Aristotle nor the Stoics, but a model based on a Big Bang triggered by a quantum fluctuation. And yes, of course everything, including science, is still subject to Agrippa’s trilemma!
Thanks!! It's such a broad topic with so many angles that I just hope we have enough time to cover all of them, looking forward to Sunday's meetup!
Looking forward to it! Will be joining you from Catania, eastern Sicily!
ὦ θεοί! I feel like the television broke, or the film jammed in the sprockets. You really got going there. I was engrossed chomping on popcorn and the episode ended with a major plot twist.
What happens next? You can write a book on this. Very insightful. 😊
As it turns out, that’s in part the topic of my next course for The Teaching Company…
😳 It’s a page turner! I was spellbound and the film 🎞️ thread out of the reel slapping away! That’s wonderful news. The reader can tell you have much to say on a subject that’s thread the ages! 👍😊
Loved this post. Found myself nodding along and saying “yes!” a lot.
Massimo, I particularly appreciated this statement: “…ideally, at least—philosophical inquiry is open ended. Just as in science, the inquirer strives to boldly go wherever reason and evidence lead. In the case of theology, by contrast, the conclusion is pre-determined and cannot possibly be contradicted by any argument or evidence”. As an ex secular Buddhist practitioner, my teacher was Stephen Batchelor. He reformulated the Four Noble Truths (which presume faith or belief in unquestionable givens, just like religion) into Four Noble Tasks (empirical practices which follow the data, like philosophy & science). He summarised these tasks as ELSA: Embrace life, Let reactivity be, See reactivity stop, and Actualize a path - https://bit.ly/3i5t1fL . The purpose of this practice is not to strive for enlightenment (a futile endeavour akin to aiming to become a Sage) but to realise “…our full human potential to live intelligently, compassionately and hopefully with wisdom.” Sounds pretty much like Stoicism to me & is another example of the BCE interactions between India & Greece.
Vivian, yes, that sounds very much like Stoicism, especially as it is practiced today, in a secularized fashion. Happy new year!
Thank you & the same to you Massimo. I'm an avid reader of your books & articles.
Much appreciated!
Difficult to argue with your chain of thought except the bit about Buddhism. A lot has been mixed with Hindu belief & I am not talking about the Gods of Mythology. It’s the abstract about Atman & Brahma. Buddhas first noble truth is Dukha which is sadness or equivalent to absence of pain (Epicurean). Te second truth is not to have any Desire which can be debated.
Here is my take on the universal God & it’s called GRAVITY. It has created the Cosmos & holds it together & is expanding it with a little tweaking from Relativity. So Newton & Einstein explain all that is known about our universe.
Well, despite Newton and Einstein, we still don't really understand gravity...
questioning and open-ended--that seems to define the distinction well
'The runaway dreams put a rope to my soul' -- a bit of Zen from 'Walker Behind the Wheel'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjyqZXCqKdo
My pet theory of religion is that it is a means of inducing an 'endorphin' high. Do something slightly painful for a long time and the endorphins, etc. kick in and you feel 'God', grace or enlightenment. At least in Zen while there are some silly stories (and some funny ones too) belief is not a big deal.
Sharing in the 'high' may have some utility in terms of group solidarity.
Sit in an uncomfortable posture ('just sitting') for a long time, trying to solve an impossible riddle while someone occasionally wacks ypu with a board...ah!
I do agree that dogma is a typical difference between religions and philosophy, but like all definitions the boundaries are fuzzy.
Yup, I'm pretty much in agreement there.
Appreciated thinking, though “philosophers are in the business...” is not my favorite phrase. I’m also thinking that, for the same reason Ethical Culture qualifies as a religion for tax purposes, so would Stoicism, for example. Time to declare a building dedicated to Stoicism or a cousin thereof?
🌲🌲🌲🌲
Well, "philosophers are in the business..." is just a common phrase.
Regarding Ethical, I'm pretty sure it was Adler's explicit decision, way before tax issues might have come out. Not a decision I agree with, I might add.
As for Stoicism, nope, Zeno explicitly said "there will be no temples in the ideal Stoic Republic."
Thx. I don’t know what was on Adler’s mind re tax exemption when he formed Ethical, but coming from a tax exempt synagogue …. Either way, it remains a practice with narrow appeal that might have greater appeal in the modern era without the religion label.
Yes, Ethical remains a practice with a very narrow appeal. The reasons are not entirely clear to me. Someone should be doing a sociological study about this!
Hah!
Excellent point; reminds me of the Creation/Evolution debate: what could change your mind? Nye: evidence. Ham: nothing
Exactly.