The Great Ideas of Philosophy by Daniel Robinson | Chapter 11: Hippocrates and the Science of Life

[Ycel]

Sarah wrote: " Ycel

Hindi ako si Shiela.. :l :))))"

Eeeeeeeeek! So sorry, edited.

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "As human history marched on, we did not necessarily get philosophical ideas that are more truthful and correct (view spoiler)[(example: Marxism) (hide spoiler)]. But I shall stop here before I spoil it any further."
(view spoiler)[>>> I'm rather hoping I misunderstood this, because it made my heart jump a little. My profs were passionate about the MLM (Marx-Lenin-Mao) philosophy, and I still have vestiges of their discussion points when I was in class, half-listening. (hide spoiler)]

Sarah wrote: " bago natin masabi na tubig eto h2o eto hindi sya kuha ka ng hydrogen atom tapos oxygen then boom tubig"
(view spoiler)[>>> I hope you don't mind, but I was amused at "boom". Haha, ang kyut. But nice ideas. I haven't actually heard of the Irreducible Complexity, but it sounds tricky. (view spoiler)[Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. (Wiki) (hide spoiler)](Delicious.) Will ponder over them for some time :D Thanks! (hide spoiler)]

Ycel wrote: "DC:
I think I just got bit by the existential nihilist bug again, what with the whole journey/destination thing.

Por que? Hmmm…you have to elaborate on this when we meet."
(view spoiler)[>>> I have lately been fixated with the meaningful VS meaningless life debate. We can go more in depth some time :D

Oh, and I'm also excited by the I-know-that-I-don't-know-anything and the-unexamined-life-is-not-worth-living guy! Woot woot! (hide spoiler)]

JL wrote: "Haha, I'll stop drinking na! Bakit nga pala KoolAid? :)"
(view spoiler)[>>> Ooops, sorry! I read this book once, The Electric KoolAid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, in which (view spoiler)[a jug of KoolAid was laced with LSD. (Here's a source). Funnily enough I have substance-related literature at home... Heh. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

JL: (view spoiler)[>>> I ADORE Jostein Gaarder. Hahaha. Maya is a very philosophical novel with an angle just like in Sophie's World. If you're interested, I could let you have a look at my copy :D As for Asimov's Nemesis, it's well, interesting. (view spoiler)[SPOILER ALERT(view spoiler)[It talks of a living planet who can communicate with a certain young woman. That's why I remembered it when you mentioned participatory consciousness. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

Also: /trolled (hide spoiler)]

JL wrote: "And being wide awake does have its positive qualities and advantages diba, so it wasn't meant to be discriminatory."
(view spoiler)[>>> Well, of course, but when you state that I presume you mean those of the intellectual world, not that of the layman? Hmm, tricky issue, but I think I can better explain myself if I didn't have to type it XD *also known as: DC's currently lazy to back up argument* (hide spoiler)]

JL wrote: "" For the ancients, the 'soulful' experience was natural and as easy as cupcake, but for us, now, I think we really need the cultivation and exercise of all our cognitive capacities (imaginative, aesthetic, moral, intellect) to once again percieve this ensouled world."
(view spoiler)[>>> You think cupcakes are easy?!?! Sumbong kita kay Tina! HAHAHA!

But you know, I think that just because people are starting to get more and more practical, it doesn't mean that they've forgotten the soulful experience. But then again, thinking about what you said, I suppose you're right in the "receded" part. Thanks to FB alone, you see how communication between people could erode and all that. Interesting. (hide spoiler)]

JL wrote: "http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publica..."
(view spoiler)[>>> *lights up in glee* Looks like a good article :D Thanks for the link! (hide spoiler)]


Talasalitaan:
(view spoiler)["Pleroma" - ( a fullness; abundance, plenty ) http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
"Ontology" - ( the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such ) http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
"Epistaxis" - ( this thread ) (hide spoiler)]

Oh my goodness, we're on the second page already... Things can only get more intense :O

[DC]

(Quick go-over on Chapter 2)

I really feel Robinson's humor shine through here :D (view spoiler)[I love ba-ba-ba-ba-ba, Shut Up Because I Said So, More sun than Pharoah?! (hide spoiler)] Humor is always a great thing to have as you go through the most toxic of topics, after all xD

Something bugged me about the lecture though. How exactly would you delineate FOLK WISDOM vs PHILOSOPHY?
-> (view spoiler)[You have Confucianism, feng shui, Buddhism, the Vedas on the one hand, then you have the ancient Greek philosophers on the other. Why can't the eastern thought be considered philosophy, only folk wisdom? (hide spoiler)]

As far as I can understand, philosophy has been defined as:
-> (view spoiler)[- a systematic and critical perspective on all claims of other genres
- something that tests the most fundamental beliefs, convictions, and values we have
- something wherein criticism is central to the process
- the love for wisdom
- something that arises out of the need for an intelligible world in the face of danger and uncertainty
(hide spoiler)]

So, do I need everything stated above to be considered "philosophical"?

Olympianism
-> (view spoiler)[I think that this argument on how the Greeks got to have their philosophical wise men is interesting. By not having a spiritual divinity to worship, they were essentially allowed to think more, scrutinize more. But, when I say "they", I of course mean the guys who have their names in textbooks, such as Socrates or Aristotle or Democrates. The layman everyday Greeks were, I believe, spiritual also in a sense - they believed in the Oracle at Delphi, worshipped Athena or Apollo or Aphrodite (even erected temples for them), and even had rituals that were managed by priests.

I guess the environment provided by having Olympianism in place fostered the thoughts of these great thinkers, but do you think it fostered the thoughts of all the other Greeks too? (hide spoiler)]

The language
-> (view spoiler)[What would you guys know about Greek language and how it "lends itself to a kind of analyticity"? (hide spoiler)]

I have a few more points, but I'll add them on later. I'll also check out Angus' and Ycel's notes later :D

[Tina]

Troll comment, only because I saw my name in DC's comment :D (view spoiler)[ I have been summoned! (hide spoiler)]

DC wrote: "[>>> You think cupcakes are easy?!?! Sumbong kita kay Tina! HAHAHA!"

I think maybe he meant it's easy to eat. Or something. JL, (view spoiler)[next time we'll have a baking party, I'll let you make one batch. XD (hide spoiler)]

--

Okay carry on guys. :) *teleports away*

[Kamille]

Having zero background on philosophy, I thought that this book will teach me tons of ideas. But I'm having a hard time coping with the topics. :(

I'll just catch with you guys later on when I'm able. But I'm checking this thread every now and then to see your discussions. :)

[Angus]

Okay, I haven't answered Assignment 2 because 1.) I am too lazy, and 2.) I am still trying to think of answers.

Quick reaction regarding philosophy vs folk wisdom: categorizing Confucianism under folk wisdom is like calling a negro 'nigger.' You know what I'm saying?

*Back to work

[Ycel]

KAMILLE:
No worries, dear. It is quite understandable if you don’t have any philosophy background. As the subject matter traces the history of ideas, one will have to expect that the topics will be a synthesis of not just philosophy but also religion, psychology, history, political science, literature, drama, the natural sciences, even mathematics. But don’t get disheartened if you are hearing about these things for the first time. You will learn a lot even by just listening, so yes, do check on this thread regularly, and check out the works mentioned in the course outline (The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Upanishads, the Greek drama/tragedies, etc.). That is how philosophy is meant to be tackled. It entails a lot of work, but the intellectual reward is enriching. :)

[Ycel]

DC:
I'm rather hoping I misunderstood this, because it made my heart jump a little. My profs were passionate about the MLM (Marx-Lenin-Mao) philosophy, and I still have vestiges of their discussion points when I was in class, half-listening.

My Dear Camille (DC) :p I fear we have come to a point of disagreement at last. I have to declare now that I am not a fan of Marxism because it did not work (the so-called people’s republics became authoritarian and wrecked their economies). On a personal level, I thoroughly dislike Marxism because it does not allow private ownership. What I own is the fruit of my labor, my thinking. To allow the state to decide how to distribute the fruits of my labor is to allow it to control my brain, myself, my whole being. Although I do not completely agree with Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, she beautifully illustrated the flaws of socialism in her influential work Atlas Shrugged . “The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence—to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness )

[DC]

Additional responses to follow :)

1. Explain how the conception of the Olympian gods liberates Greek thought.

(view spoiler)[The Olympian gods cared naught for the human race. They merely did as they pleased, and probably did good to disrupt the people with their tricks and tomfoolery.

This “uncaring” attitude of the gods allowed the Greeks to believe that they are forsaken on this world they know very little of. They had few resources, and thus had to continually imperialize nearby nations to support their population. (This meant that they had to continually engage with peoples of different cultures and races.) They had to work hard for their everyday living, and utilized just enough slaves for their domestic cares. There was an Oracle at Delphi who gave them vague phrases that they would adapt based on their needs, but she was by no means a god who would explicitly tell them how to live. (Kind of like horoscopes today, I guess.)

Christians are supposed to thrive complacently in the knowledge that there is a god that takes care of their wellbeing, that there is a god who would punish them if they did wrong, that there is a god who would care for their wellbeing well after they die. Did the Greeks have this? Not exactly. They had gods, but these gods may take care of their wellbeing, punish them accordingly, and/or care for their wellbeing after they die – but by their own whim. These gods are not obligated to take care of the mortals. The Greeks therefore did not have anyone they could truly rely on, unless it was themselves, or each other.

I guess that the Greek thinkers, exasperated as they were, needed to understand what they were living for, what things they don’t understand and how they were going to understand it, and what happens to them after they died. They didn’t have to worry about having the scorn of a god over their heads when they thought of something “sacrilegious”. They didn’t have to worry about going against certain commandments when they thought that doing so-and-so was “good”. They didn’t have to worry about these things – so this gave them the freedom to think what they chose. (hide spoiler)]

2. Describe factors usually offered to account for the Greek philosophical achievement that were not present in earlier and highly developed civilizations.

(view spoiler)[I would assume that it’s more on the criticism and self-criticism part of Greek thinking, although, as I have phrased in my previous questions, I still want to know what you guys think about the difference between folk wisdom and philosophical thought. (hide spoiler)]

3. How does Isocrates intend Hellene to be understood, and does this sense of the term retain its meaning today?

(view spoiler)[Let me start off by saying that I was not initially aware of this Isocrates. (I'm not a Philo major; I just love reading of ideas and trivia.) Apparently he's one of the 10 Great Orators, and was a respected man of the field. Even Socrates, I believe, respected him for his magnificent speeches, even though Socrates (and Plato) were against the sophists. (Sophists were learned men who provided education to the rich, in return for a fee.) It's like he turned speech-making into an art form. It has been said however, that sometimes in the wonderful-ness of his speeches he sacrifices clarity.

So, this is one English translation of Isocrates' text in Hellenes:
"Our city of Athens has so far surpassed other men in its wisdom and its power of expression that its pupils have become the teachers of the world. It has caused the name of Hellene to be regarded as no longer a mark of racial origin but of intelligence, so that men are called Hellenes because they have shared our common education rather than that they share in our common ethnic origin."

Noting this, it would appear that Isocrates wanted to say that philosophy and this kind of wisdom has surpassed any other state, and people have schooled themselves in Greek thought since it's"the best". Thus, those who learned from the Greek thinkers of the Greeks' thinking could be called Hellenes too, since they will think the way Greeks do.

I guess it's like calling those who come to believe in the Christ as "Christian", regardless of their race or origin. (Whether Jew or Gentile.)

(view spoiler)[However, modern scholars themselves have different interpretations of Isocrates' text.

Historically speaking, it has been said that Greece always had internal conflict, with its city-states always at war. (I suppose the few resources note had something to do with this.)

Therefore, some scholars have interpreted the (original) text to mean that Greeks themselves should band together ("us Hellenes") to protect themselves from foreign threat. (hide spoiler)]

As for its applications today, I've given the Christian example above to show this. It's also like how you can be Filipino, Chinese, etc - but if you studied in one school (La Salle, UP, Ateneo, etc), you become a Lasallian, Isko or Atenean. Each school also preaches different ideals (though they offer the same courses), so once you're affiliated with a school, you will carry its ideals with you, whether you want to or not :) (hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Random reactions:


Sarah: This is off topic but... (view spoiler)[I checked out this intelligent design philosophy (it IS a philosophy, right?), whose proponents use the irreducible complexity argument. (view spoiler)["It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea"." (hide spoiler)] It's so much genius! Hahaha! Thanks for introducing it ^_^ (hide spoiler)]

Tina: Haha, welcome to the thread! :P (view spoiler)[Baking party! Hahaha! That sounds like so much awesome :D (hide spoiler)]

Kamille: It's all right. It really takes some time to get used to the discussion, especially if you're new to the thoughts noted here. Just check in with us from time to time, because we might just be discussing a topic you're familiar and interested in :) and don't hesitate to ask questions if necessary! See you around :D

Ycel: (view spoiler)[Yay, this will be a happy debate then ^.^ I read the Communist Manifesto once, but I'll reread it when we get to that lecture on Marx. I'll withhold my opinions for now :D although -"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." :) (hide spoiler)]

Ontopic comments later! Haha!

[JL]

Chapter 2: just some quick observations that's hopefully Kool-Aid free :)

1) I find it interesting that some of the pre-socratic philosophers foreshadowed contemporary scientific attitudes. Deomocritus in his atomist philosophy felt that to analyze and break things down their constituent components until you reach the ultimate bottom would explain everything else (sounds eerily like Physics). Democritus represented the extreme of the early Greek's affinity with the natural earth and materiality (w/c together with the popular religion of Olympianism of Homer w/c radically divides man and gods will be, I think, corrected by Plato by seeking beyond the material towards a transcendent reality). The Sophists, I dont know, sound like precursors to radical relativists, and Anaximander's search for first principle sounds like the modern search for the grand theory of everything.

2) I find Robinson's definition of Philosophy quite interesting. Thanks DC for giving a wonderful outline: a systematic and critical perspective on all claims of other genres, something that tests the most fundamental beliefs, convictions, and values we have, something wherein criticism is central to the process, the love for wisdom, something that arises out of the need for an intelligible world in the face of danger and uncertainty. Criticality, that inner attitude to hold everything at a distance and question it, especially tradition and what has gone before, speaks of a sharp divide between the self and whatever is in question. I don't know, but it looks like the gradual emergence of this inner space allowed the Greeks to accomplish some things unheard of before: like giving the first systematic account of history (Herodotus), or like being able to study nature, including man, as an object (Democritus).

I think it is this attitude, including the other things outlined by DC, that Robinson meant as Philosophy, the Greek way. Confucianism is still called the Philosophy of Confucius, but maybe not with this attitude and spirit in mind. But I'm unfamiliar with Confucianism so I'm probably wrong. Folk Wisdom or lore, on the other hand, I think means customs that are the traditions of a culture. It is Wisdom that was given, and not earned via the thinking activity of man. A lot of the older myths hold that Wisdom or truth or even technology came from revelation from the gods or other supernatural beings. Fire came from Prometheus, for ancient Egyptians writing was taught by a god (Thoth?). Philosophy, the Greek way, sounds like a sign of man's coming of age.

In connection with Confucianism, has anyone heard of the Axial Age? Wikipedia states: "Axial Age or Axial Period is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers to describe the period from 800 to 200 BC, during which, according to Jaspers, similar revolutionary thinking appeared in Persia, India, China and the Occident...during the Axial Age "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently in China, India, Persia, Judea, and Greece. And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today"...developments in religion and philosophy [that offers a] striking parallel without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other." A very interesting field of study.

Before this post becomes Kool-Aidy again, just want to say na natawa dn ako sa humor ni Robinson, lalo na nung ginaya nya yung boses ni Aphrodite nung knkwento nya yung part sa Iliad na nsugatan yung dyosa at ngrereklamo kay Zeus haha

[Ycel]

Quickie comment lang. Mommy duties beckon.

How exactly would you delineate FOLK WISDOM vs PHILOSOPHY?

I think philosophy is more rigorous because of the criticality component, while folk wisdom = folklore which is just a collection of a people’s legends, music, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, fairy tales, stories, tall tales, and customs. Consider for example the huge difference between the Homeric epics and Plato’s Republic (West) or the Five Classics vs. The Art of War (East).

Will be back later…

[Sarah]

though hindi ko pa natatapos ung Chapter 2. Naeexcite nanaman ako magcomment. Sorry. :) hehehe

Ycel DC JL

I totally disagree that Folk Wisdom and Philosophy are two different things. They are just the same thing with different approach.

Sabi nga nung professor kong isa yung western philo daw is more of a left brain philosophy while ung eastern eh right brain mostly.

The thing is Religion, culture and philosophy in the eastern setting is deemed as one. For example Buddhism it is a philosophy it itself pero religion din eto for some at the same time.

DC

Yes it is. Alam mo bakit ko yan natandaan nung nadaanan namin? Dahil ung genius niya nakakatuwa. I once shared yang thought na yan sa isang kaklase ko na atheist. Agnostic na sya ngayon. hahahaha. masaya yan pag usapan. :)



eto ung kinakatakot ko sa mga comments. kasi iba iba ung tono ng pagbabasa natin. pero i don't mean to be rude sa disagreement ko na un. just a friendly challenge sa thread natin. kaya guys PEACE tayo. :))) weee! :)

[DC]

Angus, on your notes: (view spoiler)[

*Environment as a factor in philosophizing - There are just places where mental activities are best done. Like reading. One can't read inside a bar for obvious reasons.
(view spoiler)[>>> I never actually thought of this while thinking up the answers. You're right! I guess when you're enmeshed too much in the something (like the Greek history), you lose perspective of other things (like the practicality of argument). (hide spoiler)]

*I wonder though if it's always about being able to successfully test your convictions. I think that it's more about getting a feeling of certain satisfaction, that feeling that somehow, your beliefs make sense regardless of being right or wrong.
(view spoiler)[>>> Though, of course, your yardstick for measuring "satisfaction" would differ, depending on situation, on what new things you've learned, and on a number of other things. But I guess that's what philosophy can offer, a way to keep you, well, guessing until you're fully comfortable with what you believe in. I guess some never get fully comfortable though ;) (hide spoiler)]

*We were traversing the length of NLEX when she saw Mt. Arayat and then asked me why were there mountains. I said that very strong earthquakes made them.... Nagmagaling pa kasi ako, hahaha.
(view spoiler)[>>> I still do this! I guess my live-curious streak affected my sisters (especially the youngest one), so I always get questions on the most random things. However, I also have the rep amongst them that I "always give the longest answers", because I try to be as correct as I can. ("Ugh, okay, okay, I get it already.")

I have also told them that sometimes I don't know the answers either though, then we look together for the correct one (or widely accepted one, anyway). I think it's important to tell children the truth. My belief is that: "If they're old enough to ask questions, they're old enough to get answers." :)

On a separate note, check out this video (which is about censorship, but deals with my principle above, especially (view spoiler)[VAGINA (hide spoiler)]): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeFZUF... (hide spoiler)]

*Fear, I believe now, is the most fundamental human feeling. All other feelings branch out from it.
(view spoiler)[>>> I feel like we'll be discussing more indepthly this argument as we go along :D (hide spoiler)]

*Sunshine theory - Similar to the essay written by Jose Rizal, The Indolence of the Filipinos, if I remember it right. Something about the direct proportion of heat to productivity.
(view spoiler)[>>> *happy smiles* Indeed, he wrote about it there, as an argument. Hahaha. Although now that I think about it, Indios had more sunshine than Pharoah?! (hide spoiler)]

*On slavery - I think we have this need to control others. Perhaps slavery is an answer to the third central question, the question of governance.
(view spoiler)[>>> Oooh, the power play angle. Hee, love it! (hide spoiler)]

*We are like puppets, and the gods can move us any which way they will by pulling on these strings, but we have one string that we can pull back on, and it's the Golden String of Reason. - Nice one. Let's keep pulling our respective Golden Strings!
>>> AYE!
(hide spoiler)]

Ycel, on your notes: (view spoiler)[

Speaking of oracles, I doubt if the Oracle of Delphi looked like this: [ (hide spoiler)]...
(view spoiler)[>>> Hahaha, offtopic, but I heard that they actually filmed this part underwater! :D But meowwwrrr indeed! (hide spoiler)]

the Greeks were the first to practice democracy and form city-states, and schools of thought and critical inquiry started to flourish
(view spoiler)[>>> But why democracy in particular? Why not a dictatorship (like Sparta) especially since they needed to keep colonizing other states? (hide spoiler)]

Let’ see… the Olympic games aside, the Greeks were among the first to create a diaspora. Owing to the achievements of Alexander the Great, Greek culture was not confined to the areas around the Aegean Sea but extended far into Asia, so there were a lot of Greek-speaking people although they were not native Greeks [(notably Jesus and St. Paul) (hide spoiler)].
(view spoiler)[>>> Thanks for the historical insight! I enjoyed it :D (hide spoiler)]

To be a Hellene in those times is to be a fairly sophisticated, highly-cultured person so I can imagine the superiority and self-importance of a Hellene especially during the Golden Age of the Hellenistic civilization.
(view spoiler)[>> Kind of like the French before? :D (hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

JL, on your notes: (view spoiler)[(Yeah, basically I'm trolling again.)

I find it interesting that some of the pre-socratic philosophers foreshadowed contemporary scientific attitudes.
(view spoiler)[>>> How else could contemporary scientific thought started? TROLL. LOL. (hide spoiler)]

Democritus represented the extreme of the early Greek's affinity with the natural earth and materiality...
(view spoiler)[>>> Wow, this is a great observation! (hide spoiler)]

Criticality, that inner attitude to hold everything at a distance and question it, especially tradition and what has gone before, speaks of a sharp divide between the self and whatever is in question.
(view spoiler)[>>> Offtopic! (view spoiler)[It may be the modern way of thinking, but recently, I've heard that Quantum Physicists believe that there's NO SUCH THING as an objective third party view - because you'll ALWAYS have a standpoint or an already biased viewpoint in looking at one thing or another. (Take, for example, the "cupcake" thing with Tina. (view spoiler)[For a non-baker, the end product, "cupcake" is merely a piece of pastry - a yummy one, of course - with frosting on top. For a baker, the "cupcake" is not just a pastry, it is a mix of ingredients - each probably chosen with care - which have been carefully added together - dry before wet ingredients please -, and then baked at a certain temperature at a certain time - 350 degrees or 340? 10 minutes or 9.5 minutes? -. Yeah, I love baking because it's such an exact science ^_^ (hide spoiler)]) (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

I don't know, but it looks like the gradual emergence of this inner space allowed the Greeks to accomplish some things unheard of before...
(view spoiler)[>>> Inner space. Hmm. As opposed to outer space...? (hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

I decided to get all your arguments on religion / philosophy / folk wisdom, para isang tinginan lang :D (view spoiler)[

ANGUS
(view spoiler)[*On religion - Isn't religion also another form of philosophy? Religion provides us with answers on the three central questions, but I think the difference it has with philosophy is that it restricts people from questioning the answers provided. The strings of reason are cut from the people because if you do so much as tug it a tiny bit, one is excommunicated and considered a heretic.

*Civilizations without philosophical activities. - Wait, is this even possible? Ancient civilizations must have done some of these. They must have formulated a system for something (like their political and judicial systems), although I doubt that most of us will approve of what they produced.

Quick reaction regarding philosophy vs folk wisdom: categorizing Confucianism under folk wisdom is like calling a negro 'nigger.' You know what I'm saying?
(hide spoiler)]

YCEL
(view spoiler)[The most plausible explanation is the unique characteristic of the Greek religion, which, “unusually for the period, was not a state religion, but neither was Greek society secular: The reverential and the political were highly integrated; there was a religious attitude but not a state religion.” An odd configuration yet a philosophical approach came about because priests had no authority to pronounce on ultimate questions.

No other civilization can lay claim to this achievement except the Hellenes. So – to use rationality to successfully traverse the challenges of daily life, to prioritize the important things, to adopt a critical mind when media insists that product x is good for us, to scrutinize a senatorial candidate’s platform and plan of action – for me, is to share in Isocrates’ idea of a Hellene.

How exactly would you delineate FOLK WISDOM vs PHILOSOPHY?
> I think philosophy is more rigorous because of the criticality component, while folk wisdom = folklore which is just a collection of a people’s legends, music, oral history, proverbs, jokes, popular beliefs, fairy tales, stories, tall tales, and customs. Consider for example the huge difference between the Homeric epics and Plato’s Republic (West) or the Five Classics vs. The Art of War (East).
(hide spoiler)]


JL
(view spoiler)[Confucianism is still called the Philosophy of Confucius, but maybe not with this attitude and spirit in mind. But I'm unfamiliar with Confucianism so I'm probably wrong. Folk Wisdom or lore, on the other hand, I think means customs that are the traditions of a culture. It is Wisdom that was given, and not earned via the thinking activity of man. A lot of the older myths hold that Wisdom or truth or even technology came from revelation from the gods or other supernatural beings. Fire came from Prometheus, for ancient Egyptians writing was taught by a god (Thoth?). Philosophy, the Greek way, sounds like a sign of man's coming of age.

In connection with Confucianism, has anyone heard of the Axial Age? Wikipedia states: "Axial Age or Axial Period is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers to describe the period from 800 to 200 BC, during which, according to Jaspers, similar revolutionary thinking appeared in Persia, India, China and the Occident...during the Axial Age "the spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently in China, India, Persia, Judea, and Greece. And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today"...developments in religion and philosophy [that offers a] striking parallel without any obvious direct transmission of ideas from one region to the other." A very interesting field of study.
(hide spoiler)]

SARAH
(view spoiler)[I totally disagree that Folk Wisdom and Philosophy are two different things. They are just the same thing with different approach.

Sabi nga nung professor kong isa yung western philo daw is more of a left brain philosophy while ung eastern eh right brain mostly.

The thing is Religion, culture and philosophy in the eastern setting is deemed as one. For example Buddhism it is a philosophy it itself pero religion din eto for some at the same time.
(hide spoiler)]
(hide spoiler)]

First off: Thanks all for considering my question :)

Angus, (view spoiler)[hindi ko gets ang negro/nigger look towards Confucianism. Care to explain? :) (hide spoiler)]

I think we've established earlier that, back in the day, people inevitably believed in a sort of divinity. (See Ycel's comment on Homo religiosus: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... ) So, whether Chinese, Greek, Filipino, etc. it was inevitable that you believed in a higher form of being. A sort of mystical element that, for them (or for you) rules the universe... Probably because they (you) don't.

JL mentions how customs and traditions are very important in the aspect of civilizations, and this probably gave rise to certain ways of thinking - inevitably putting a sort of philosophy (love of wisdom, certain ways of thinking about things) in place.

Now, as for the arguments on religion / philosophy, I think Sarah put it simply when it's a matter of cultural differences, wherein the "philosophy" of the Eastern thought has already considered all aspects of human behavior, conduct, governance (as those mentioned by Ycel), whereas the "philosophy" of the Western thought dealt mostly with questioning the systems for each of the three already in place. (I like Sarah's note on the "left brain / right brain" thought.)

Angus also provides a good point- on the excommunication/heretic part. As noted above, the system or, for the sake of brevity, the eastern philosophy already has been passed down for people not to think about. The Greeks had more freedom to criticize, and thus just did that (as Ycel notes, too). I guess that's how Greek philosophy differs from those present in the time (see, however, JL's notes in his Axial Age comment).

Yeah, so I guess it's good to think that Folk Wisdom could mean traditions and customs that have been passed on through generations (parang ang cultural logic natin ng pag-gisa ng bawang-sibuyas-kamatis, and IN THAT ORDER), while Philosophy could mean the entire system of thought.

UNLESS you guys have other thoughts pa? :D

[DC]

Sarah wrote: "eto ung kinakatakot ko sa mga comments. kasi iba iba ung tono ng pagbabasa natin. pero i don't mean to be rude sa disagreement ko na un. just a friendly challenge sa thread natin. kaya guys PEACE tayo. :))) "
(view spoiler)[>>> WALA. NO PEACE FOR YOU. Haha, joke lang :) It can't be helped that we look at things differently, since we all have different backgrounds, different ways of looking at things. It's inevitable that we get disagreements, and these disagreements actually provide a more enriching discussion :D (hide spoiler)]

By the way, let's have one last round of reactions, guys, and move on to Chapter 3 either today or tomorrow :D

[Ycel]

Dears, I have been down with gastroenteritis since last night so I’ve been radio silent for a while. My legs are like jelly and my brain is woozy. Ugh. There goes Mother’s Day for me.

Sarah has a point on the left brain/right brain angle. I forgot to mention that western philosophy is theory driven. Somebody summarized the salient differences here.

Let’s not be worried about being suspected of rudeness when we disagree. I think we have pretty much covered this when we spelled out the rules of engagement at the start of the thread. I am always operating on the assumption that each of us here can hold his own. Ergo, no harm done.

Darn tummy hurting again.

[Mark]

I highly recommend this book for those who are interested in reading about Western philosophy, or those who are just beginning to read about Western philosophy. The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. You will be surprised about what the Greeks really thought about being, causality, change, and of course what they really thought about the divine.

[Ycel]

Hi, Mark! Thanks for the book shove :) You're welcome to join in the discussion anytime.

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "Dears, I have been down with gastroenteritis since last night so I’ve been radio silent for a while. My legs are like jelly and my brain is woozy. Ugh. There goes Mother’s Day for me."
(view spoiler)[>>> Eek! I hope you're feeling better today, Ycel :( Hope you had a happy mother's day nevertheless :)

Nice article, by the way. Thanks for the link! (hide spoiler)]

Thanks for the recommend, Mark :D

[Ycel]

Thanks, DC. Better now but not well enough to drive and cast my vote :(

I am posting my thoughts now on the next lecture. I will go slightly off-topic here because I want to tackle a more contemporary (sort of) numbers issue to drive home the main point of lecture 3.

03 – Pythagoras and the Divinity of Number
(view spoiler)[
I’ve always been awed by mathematics, said to be the purest of all branches of knowledge. To appreciate mathematics one has to have a good teacher to properly impart the deep mysteries embedded in the numbers. One will lose a lot of good opportunities in the future if one is unfortunate enough to end up with a lousy math teacher (no kidding).

My favorite point in lecture 3 is this: “There is a wonderful correspondence between the realm of matter and that of abstraction. Often mathematical abstractions predate physical discoveries which, however, they describe exactly.”

And my favorite among these mathematical abstractions is the Fibonacci number.

Leonardo Fibonacci was a famous Italian mathematician who had an eureka moment when he discovered a simple series of numbers that created ratios describing the natural proportions of things in the universe.

The ratios arise from the following number series: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144...

This series of numbers is derived by starting with 0 followed by 1 and then adding 0 + 1 to get 1, the third number. Then, adding the second and third number (1 + 1) to get 2, the fourth number, and so on.

After the first few numbers in the sequence, if you measure the ratio of any number to the succeeding higher number, you get .618. For example, 34 divided by 55 equals .618.

If you measure the ratio between alternate numbers you get .382. For example, 34 divided by 89 = 0.382. There are other ratios generated but I will stop here before I put you all in comatose. Suffice it to say that these ratios are quite important.

What is amazing about the Fibonacci sequences is that they appear in biological settings such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the shell of a conch, the fruitlets of a pineapple, the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern, the arrangement of a pine cone, among others. Does this not show that “creation is itself harmonic, expressive of a divinely rational plan”? You tell me.

But perhaps the most interesting application of the Fibonacci number is in stocks and foreign currency trading. In simple terms, traders use the Fibonacci number to predict how high (view spoiler)[(resistance/extension level) (hide spoiler)] or low (view spoiler)[(support/retracement level) (hide spoiler)] a market will go. Using the Fibonacci application tools (view spoiler)[(most charting software includes both Fibonacci retracement and extension level tools) (hide spoiler)], traders will know when to buy or sell stocks and make money.

Now tell me how anyone can possibly hate numbers.
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Aww, Ycel, hope you fully recover soon! :/

Here are the guide questions for Chapter 3.

Questions to Consider:
1. Summarize in what ways Pythagorean “numerology” is like and unlike modern mathematical models of reality.
2. Explain the striking agreement found between abstract mathematics and actually occurring natural items.

[DC]

Hello guys! Haha, where are y'all? Still resting from the blood transfusions? ;)

Anyway, here's my quick go-over for Chap 3.

(view spoiler)[Okay, let me just start off with saying that this chapter is very difficult for me. It's very abstract! (view spoiler)[ (Yeah, I would've taken an engineering course in college, but I didn't and ended up with humanities. I'm not sure if I'm happy? Hahaha.) (hide spoiler)]

I loved math as a kid (I still do), though it didn't love me back, haha. (view spoiler)[Math is so emo; nobody loves it. (hide spoiler)] Hearing about math here (rudimentary math, no less!) gave me such a perspective it rocked my very core. I never thought of numbers as the fundaments of the cosmic soul! *head-splosion*

My other comment is about the rootwords for "philosophy". It hit my heart, haha. I'll say as a disclaimer that I might just avoid talking about it for the moment. (view spoiler)[If you want to hear me talk about why, you need to drag me to a place you can have alcohol or something. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

Other comments to follow :)

[Ycel]

Dear classmates, we can move on to chapter 4 if you like :)

[Angus]

Hi classmates, sorry I've been (and I'm still) busy. Work is a _____. I'll catch up. May special exams ba? :D

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "Dear classmates, we can move on to chapter 4 if you like :)"
>>> Nuuu, wait! I want to dissect it a bit more! I did enjoy the chapter very much, even though I have a dislike towards geometry. (view spoiler)[I enjoyed algebra and trigonometry more in school, but geom's fine too - as long as I don't have to prove anything :D Theorems made my skin crawl. (hide spoiler)] (I wanna discuss the (view spoiler)[world-came-from-numbers angle even just a bit! And the 1-2-3-4! Darn that was awesome. (hide spoiler)])

Angus wrote: "Hi classmates, sorry I've been (and I'm still) busy. Work is a _____. I'll catch up. May special exams ba? :D"
>>> Right minus wrong. Must be strapped to tickle chair. On a cliff. LOLjk. Habol lang, Angus! :D

[Ycel]

DC wrote: "I wanna discuss the [world-came-from-numbers angle even just a bit! And the 1-2-3-4! Darn that was awesome."

OK lah *Singaporean accent*. We'll talk some more, tetraktys and all :)

[DC]

Other comments on Chap 3:

- The middle-ground note (view spoiler)[("AFFECTATION!" "MORE AFFECTATION!" - this was LOL) (hide spoiler)] (view spoiler)[reminded me of Buddhism, particularly of the movie Little Buddha :) "If you pull the string too tight, it will break; if you leave it too slack, it will not play." (view spoiler)[You know, Keanuuuuuuuu~
(hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]
- Jainism (view spoiler)[is interesting! I remember hearing this in class :D The extreme vegetarianism note is, well, woah. (hide spoiler)]
- I think that the look on numerology (view spoiler)[is extremely abstract. Yes, I understand the point-line-plane-solid line of thought. Then you add on the thoughts of the Upanishads and the cosmic soul. Relate the numbers and the cosmic soul - hence the numbers are divine? Goddamn that's really something to chew on. It's almost literally up in the air. It's really too abstract for me. Too perfect. (Though I liked Robinson's mention of how you cannot quite have a perfect 90-degree angle with more precise instruments :D) (hide spoiler)]
- I never thought about music and its significance (view spoiler)[in harmony. I mean, you DO know when someone's not harmonious with the notes they belt out... But is it really because of a preconceived musical harmony? Is it innate? Can't it be a learned-through-the-years kind of thing? (hide spoiler)]
- (view spoiler)[NO CLASSROOMS DUE TO HEAT DEATH! (I don't want to hear loud applause when I said that.) <--- LOL (hide spoiler)]
- Conch shells and snowflakes <3
- He made me think of how to compute (view spoiler)[for the area of a circle D: Why oh why DO we use pie *MMM PIE* pi? We just memorize the formula without thinking twice, methinks! And it DOES go one forever! (hide spoiler)]
- "Late hours and strong coffee" :D
- Quarks + gluons = cosmos?!?! But (view spoiler)[well, you gotta admit that you'll believe more readily if there's an equation or numbers to back up something. HMM. (hide spoiler)]

The guide questions are too tough for me. The abstractions hurt my head ^^;

[DC]

Ycel wrote: "Leonardo Fibonacci (view spoiler)[was a famous Italian mathematician who had an eureka moment when he discovered a simple series of numbers that created ratios describing the natural proportions of things in the universe....

...What is amazing about the Fibonacci sequences is that they appear in biological settings such as branching in trees, arrangement of leaves on a stem, the shell of a conch, the fruitlets of a pineapple, the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling fern, the arrangement of a pine cone, among others. Does this not show that “creation is itself harmonic, expressive of a divinely rational plan”? You tell me." (hide spoiler)]

>>> Oh. My. G. Wow. I find this thought to be too scary. A series of numbers dictate the universe? It's too perfect. Too aligned. Too seemingly predictable - when we know that life is full of surprises, right?

So are you meaning to imply that anything - anything at all - can be so stripped to the rudiments, and that you can't exactly leave almost anything to chance? Or is it just creation that is "perfect", but what we do with creation is not?

(Wow, now that I think about it, doesn't that just ring of The Matrix tones?!)

But the note on "creation is itself harmonic, expressive of a divinely rational plan” is actually reminiscent of what Sarah and I have been talking about in spoiler tags: the Intelligent Design Theory :D

(Speaking of which, on a probably unrelated note- (view spoiler)[I found this amusing article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/evan... (hide spoiler)])

[Angus]

Sorry! This is late. And it was quite tough to munch. It's like biting an apple with new braces on (debilitating pain for the masochists).

03. Pythagoras and the Divinity of Number

(view spoiler)[

-Pythagoras as a politician - this surprises me because I remember him as a mathematician. But really, this shouldn't be so surprising because politics is, after all, about numbers.

-Happy medium, the middle course as the best course. - Well, is it? But we do strive for something higher.

-Harmony as something innate - Wait, but I am tone deaf! That doesn't have anything to do with the innateness of harmony, no?

-The transcendental nature of Number - a number is not transcendent in itself (except perhaps the imaginary number i, which isn't really a number because it's imaginary? :D), but Number with the capital N is yes, infinite (Is something infinite automatically transcendent? Time and Universe are also infinite, no?). It's not something that I realized before this. I always saw Number as something concrete merely because they are figures used in practical applications (shopping for books, computing for discounts, etc.) but in philosophy? Oh dear, numbers are indeed pervasive, haha.

-I find the Fibonacci sequence amazing because of its appearance in natural phenomena (the things mentioned by Ycel). Although it somehow implies that life follows a certain harmony, a certain pattern, I find myself resisting to it because I simply refuse to be reduced to patterns (yeah, yeah, I am still in the process of unlearning that I am at the center of the universe, haha). There are exceptions, right? Like the four-leafed clover and the seven-leafed five fingers. I'd like to believe that the Fibonacci dictates the ordinary, the mundane, but there are exceptions that will rise above it. Hihihi.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

DC wrote: “I find this thought to be too scary. A series of numbers dictate the universe? It's too perfect. Too aligned. Too seemingly predictable - when we know that life is full of surprises, right?

So are you meaning to imply that anything - anything at all - can be so stripped to the rudiments, and that you can't exactly leave almost anything to chance? Or is it just creation that is "perfect", but what we do with creation is not?”

While the different laws (expressed as, surprise (view spoiler)[equations (hide spoiler)]) regulating the universe imply an orderly plan, it does not diminish its wonders (at least for me). When I discovered Fibonacci, the awe that I have always felt for the beauty of creation was heightened and my respect for life deepened.

On the topic being too abstract…

You’ll be surprised to find out that babies understand that numbers are abstract. Babies now do you see? (Dr. Robinson’s voice, heee…)

So if you want to teach a baby the number 12 for example, you don’t show him this:
(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

Instead you show him this:
(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)]

Not convinced? Glenn Domann ‘s How to Teach Your Baby Math is a great resource.

[DC]

Angus wrote: (view spoiler)["Although it somehow implies that life follows a certain harmony, a certain pattern, I find myself resisting to it because I simply refuse to be reduced to patterns (yeah, yeah, I am still in the process of unlearning that I am at the center of the universe, haha). There are exceptions, right? Like the four-leafed clover and the seven-leafed five fingers. I'd like to believe that the Fibonacci dictates the ordinary, the mundane, but there are exceptions that will rise above it. Hihihi." (hide spoiler)]

That's EXACTLY why I don't trust the numerology bit. I like being the center of my universe. I like believing that if I so will it, the universe will conspire to give it to me. (view spoiler)[(Well, you know, given the proper paradigm shifts, perspectives, etc. I can go more in-depth if you ask me to, but it has something to do with quantum physicists :D) (hide spoiler)]

I like being the cosmic soul, though I don't exactly want to think of myself as a simple binary code. (If that's the case, someone must be coding me? (view spoiler)[Intelligent design philosophy / watchmaker analogy BOOM. Hi Sarah! :D (hide spoiler)])

But, you know, I just realized something: what if the exceptions to the rule - the ones that break the patterns - are actually part of the patterns themselves? That every, say, child born by the 100 x 4^24-th second is MEANT to be an exception? Like planned imperfections? The Fibonacci sequence occurs every so often; its predictability means that after counting from 89 to 144, the 144th is ACTUALLY meant to be something special? That's the point of the sequence, right?

Hotdiggity dog, I think I just made my own brain explode.


Ycel wrote: (view spoiler)[“While the different laws (expressed as, surprise [equations (hide spoiler)]) regulating the universe imply an orderly plan, it does not diminish its wonders (at least for me). When I discovered Fibonacci, the awe that I have always felt for the beauty of creation was heightened and my respect for life deepened." (hide spoiler)]

I respect that, Ycel. I personally don't like thinking that everything is so planned, so orderly, but I have to admit that whatever it is that causes the sun to shine everyday and whatever it is that makes the world, there's beauty in this universe for us to behold. If only we'd all stop to smell the flowers :)

(I am tingling with happy feels over this little note. Thanks for bringing it up, Ycel. Philosophy isn't *always* as cold or as difficult as people believe it to be. It can also, after all, remind you of the simple joys and everyday wonders that life has to offer. *FEELS*)

... Darn, I think the divinity of numbers just made me realize my own humanity, and the divinity of, well, something divine. Woo. :D

[Ycel]

DC: You will hear Dr. Robinson quoting Aristotle a lot later on: (view spoiler)["Nature does nothing without a purpose." (hide spoiler)]

*Taking a break! Game of Thrones S03E08 :)*

[Mark]

Just a note: The Aristotelian notion of purpose and design in nature (telos) is different from what (modern day) Intelligent Design advocates think about when they think of purpose and design in nature. here's a good short introduction from philosopher Edward Feser in his article, "Four approaches to teleology"
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/...

[Mark]

... and also in this well-written article, "Nature versus art" also by Edward Feser. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/...

[DC]

Welcome, Mark! :D

Hmm, interesting. Will look forward to when we get to Aristotle then :D

But hey, Mark, any thoughts about the Pythagorean thought about the divinity of number and all that? :)


Mark wrote: (view spoiler)["Just a note: The Aristotelian notion of purpose and design in nature (telos) is different from what (modern day) Intelligent Design advocates think about when they think of purpose and design in na... http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/... "

Mark wrote: "... and also in this well-written article, "Nature versus art" also by Edward Feser. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/..." (hide spoiler)]

Thanks for the articles! :) I went over both... (view spoiler)[but felt too lost :( I can't yet get the references. I'll get back to the articles when we've gotten a little past Socratic (Chap 7) and Aristotelian (Chap 12) discourse.

I'll bet the others would be able to dissect this better than me, though :D (hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Hello guys!

If you're all good with Chapter 3, let's have a last round of reactions, and move on to Chapter 4 by tomorrow (May 22), if that's good :)

[DC]

Hey guys!

If you're ready, let's proceed to Chapter 4: What Is There? (The Pre-Socratics and the Ultimate Stuff of the Universe)

Here are the guide questions:

1. Conclude whether there are similarities between the effects of skeptical philosophy on attitudes in ancient Greece and the effects of modern science on contemporary attitudes.
2. Given that nearly universal human customs (nomoi) are taken, therefore, to be “natural,” explain how exceptions can be dealt with.
3. Give examples of nearly universal customs that are brought about by essentially local conditions.

As usual, don't hesitate to give your viewpoints of previous chapters; we'll probably be bringing them up in future discussions anyway :D


Oh, and since Sophocles is soon coming up on stage (Chapter 5), Ycel & I have been thinking about a little... (view spoiler)[film-viewing, with relation to Chap 5. Any questions, suggestions, violent reactions? PM us to let us know! :) (hide spoiler)]

[Mark]

I'm really glad that you guys are reading up on the history of philosophy. The Pre-Socratics are of great interest to me, too! Their ideas helped lay the groundwork for the philosophical approach to monotheism (and shows man can know through the use of natural reason that there is a God and why there can be only one God). The work of the Pre-Socratics and the other pagan philosophers after them may be seen as preparation for the coming Good News. :-)

[Ycel]

Classmates, so sorry. Work got crazy this week. Will post my thoughts soon.

[Ycel]

Talasalitaan:

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:

1. What is there?
2. What is it like?

A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which any given subject or entity can be known. Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

Chapter 4, therefore, seeks to address the problem of knowledge.

[Sarah]

Hi people :) pasensya na medyo hindi nakakaparticipate. After ng defense namin, hopefully makapagcomment ulit dito :) Chapter 4 na ba ung readings?

[Ycel]

Chapter 4

Answers to guide questions:
(view spoiler)[
1. Conclude whether there are similarities between the effects of skeptical philosophy on attitudes in ancient Greece and the effects of modern science on contemporary attitudes.
The appearance of the pre-Socratics marked the beginning of natural philosophy. They started asking questions about the world around them and sought rational explanations instead of attributing the world’s creation to the gods. The pre-Socratics are the source of the classical idea that the universe is composed of four elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. While those of us not totally in awe of these thinkers may laugh at their ideas, they are not really that different from modern science, which posits elements, too, as the underlying building principles and blocks of matter (hello, Higgs Boson). But despite the CERN physicists’ achievement last year, a lot of us remain ignorant, much less skeptical, about the Higgs Boson. I would like to submit that this is because topics such as these remain exclusive to a select group of individuals and very few can appreciate physics especially when expressed in equation. And very few who can translate science for the layman. I so miss Carl Sagan. (view spoiler)[Bill Bryson will do for now; I’ve yet to read Stephen Hawking. (hide spoiler)]

2. Given that nearly universal human customs (nomoi) are taken, therefore, to be “natural,” explain how exceptions can be dealt with.
Will post thoughts on this later.

3. Give examples of nearly universal customs that are brought about by essentially local conditions.
Respect for elders (we’re still big on this I believe), respect for the law (highly doubtful although Filipinos are very respectful of the law outside our borders), respect for the environment (could be cyclical, we tend to trash the environment until we are penalized with heavy flooding, clean up our mess and then back slide, rinse and repeat).
(hide spoiler)]

Random thoughts:

On metaphysics, ontology and epistemology--> when I was younger I thought philosophy was all about syllogisms so I got thoroughly turned off and chose an easier path. Looking back, I’ve known 3 persons who took philosophy as their major (2 of them armed with a master’s) and all 3 are quite incisive when they analyze issues (whether political, business, contemporary) so I guess it’s true that philosophy allows one to take a skeptical approach and provide a method that removes skepticism. Sigh. I’m making up for it now.

“And philosophy now, as utterly humanizing and humanistic enterprise, is very much on the map of thought and there will be no retreating.”
You just got to love how Dr. Robinson wraps up the topic.

Here is the complete poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow quoted in the lecture:
(view spoiler)[
A Psalm of Life

Tell me not in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou are, to dust thou returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each tomorrow
Find us farther than today.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world's broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act, - act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o'erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sand of time;

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solenm main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.
(hide spoiler)]

[Ycel]

SARAH: It's OK. Good luck on your defense. Habol na lang :)

[DC]

I won't be reading the previous comments first; I'll get back to them later :D Here's my quick go-over of Chapter 4 :

- LOL on (view spoiler)[the question asked by the unemployed, etc. HAH! (hide spoiler)]
- The senses deceive me? (view spoiler)[What about my 6th sense? :O But I love the "find a reality worth the title of 'reality'" sentiment. It's so... metaphysical ;D (hide spoiler)]
- I think it's funny that "metaphysical" (view spoiler)[initially came from, well, the thought of it being post-Aristotelian - and since it's "after" Physics, it's META-physical. Just... Simply cool. (view spoiler)[I adore wordplay :D (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]
- I am enamored by the question of thoughts (view spoiler)[as bona fide ontological entities. [Geek alert-> (view spoiler)[Maybe my thoughts are fed into this whole other dimension where an alien race actually feeds on them to power their entire planet. Wow. *geekgasm* (hide spoiler)] ] (hide spoiler)]
- I like this "is what you sense (view spoiler)[actually what's real?" sentiment. I think that things are never quite as they seem, and that their states can be fluid - and, as Robinson explained - relative depending on your own perspective of things. (view spoiler)[For some reason, I heard the hum of a Tabula Rasa in the house. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]
- Realizing what epistemology entails (view spoiler)[just made my head spin. Haha, so, here we are, trying to understand WHAT philosophy means (and we haven't really gone deep to WHAT philosophies there are! (view spoiler)[The East-West question has not even been thoroughly discussed! (hide spoiler)]), and then we're told that there are MODES OF KNOWING / practicing philosophy? Hahaha. It's like you're studying how to study in order to, well, study. STUDY-CEPTION. (hide spoiler)]
- Okay, while I thought that (view spoiler)[STUDY-CEPTION is very interesting, it made me think. Hey, okay, so we have this golden cord. Some of us haven't even studied the greats, but have managed to find our own interpretations of things, right? We - particularly those who have little to no background on Philo - didn't necessarily think that "oh, okay, I think I'm being very Aristotelian when it comes to thinking about my aquarium fish". We may have just happened to be Aristotelian when it comes to our goldies or guppies.

I guess it's good that WE are studying it, but to say that metaphysicians (metaphysicists? Robinson used "metaphysicians") themselves have been "leading us out of the labyrinth" thanks to their efforts may seem a little presumptious... Although, of course, thanks to their inquiry, we got to this stage of thinking in the first place? Hmm. (hide spoiler)]
- Democritus and his atomic relationships. (PFFFT.) (view spoiler)[But I DID gave a little LOL on Robinson's mention of the buying/middle class. Hollah! (Dialectical materialism... *cough cough* Sorry, Ycel :D ) (hide spoiler)]
- STUFF.
- Moral reality & objectivity (view spoiler)[is something I can probably discuss quite happily. RIGHT & WRONG, BEAUTY & UGLINESS, TRUTH & FALSITY... Folk wisdom, ethos, how you were brought up... <3 (hide spoiler)]
- "Man is the measure of all things." <3
- The unclarity of the subject, shortness of human life, ridiculousness of human imagination...
- I like the thought about how Pre-Socratic (view spoiler)[thought "helped bring about robust skepticism". So cool! (hide spoiler)]
- Anthropocentric VS cosmological.
- “And philosophy now, as utterly humanizing and humanistic enterprise, is very much on the map of thought and there will be no retreating.” (view spoiler)[(So if you've already started this buddy read, there's no turning back! ;D Just kidding!) (hide spoiler)]

Phew! I think I can manage the questions this time around. I'll go over them another day :)

[Ycel]

DC:
(view spoiler)[
I am enamored by the question of thoughts [as bona fide ontological entities. [Geek alert-> [Maybe my thoughts are fed into this whole other dimension where an alien race actually feeds on them to power their entire planet. Wow. *geekgasm*
LOL! This is so Douglas Adams :)

I like this "is what you sense [actually what's real?" sentiment. I think that things are never quite as they seem, and that their states can be fluid - and, as Robinson explained - relative depending on your own perspective of things. [For some reason, I heard the hum of a Tabula Rasa in the house.
It will be a while before we met John Locke, so hold on to your horses!

Realizing what epistemology entails [just made my head spin. Haha, so, here we are, trying to understand WHAT philosophy means (and we haven't really gone deep to WHAT philosophies there are! (view spoiler)), and then we're told that there are MODES OF KNOWING / practicing philosophy? Hahaha. It's like you're studying how to study in order to, well, study.
Well I guess that’s why there is such a thing as a lifelong learner. This business of studying does not really end if you think about it. For example, parenting may be natural, but when I became one and turned to my mom and mother-in-law for help, it turned out they didn’t know a lot of things! (Like breast feeding for example). So yes, I have to turn to books and the internet to learn.

I guess it's good that WE are studying it, but to say that metaphysicians (metaphysicists? Robinson used "metaphysicians") themselves have been "leading us out of the labyrinth" thanks to their efforts may seem a little presumptious... Although, of course, thanks to their inquiry, we got to this stage of thinking in the first place? Hmm.
Metaphysicians are not the only one laying presumptuous claim to knowledge :) But you’ve got to hand it to them for really doing the thinking.

Democritus and his atomic relationships. (PFFFT.) [But I DID gave a little LOL on Robinson's mention of the buying/middle class. Hollah! (Dialectical materialism... *cough cough* Sorry, Ycel :D )
I’m sorry, what?

"Man is the measure of all things." <3
What about David Hume’s “reason is the slave of passion as it should be?” This is one of the more perplexing philosophical utterances that is too dangerous to quote as it is very likely to be taken out of context.
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

My answers to the guide questions for Chapter 4 .

1. Conclude whether there are similarities between the effects of skeptical philosophy on attitudes in ancient Greece and the effects of modern science on contemporary attitudes.
(view spoiler)[>>> The Aristotelian school of thought gives premium to the sensory knowledge, to the kind of things we perceive via our senses. I taste candy and it is sweet, I see the classroom empty and there is no one inside, I feel it’s cold and it is not sunny. Okay.

Now, skeptical philosophy is just that - questioning. There may be more to what we see that meets the eye. Say, for example, magic tricks / illusion. Once that coin disappears from the magician’s hand, if you believe in the Aristotelian principle “to see is to believe” you’d probably just say it’s gone. But we know that there’s more to the disappearing act than what we see – perhaps a hidden pocket, or a hand gesture meant to mask the disappearance. That’s what skeptical philosophy did – it made them think about what’s behind the movement, about what’s behind the thing, about what’s behind the being.

Modern science has shattered many a traditional belief. Babies don’t come from storks, the world is round and not flat, Pluto’s not a planet. Science has helped make us think that there’s MORE to what we see. I mean, Aristotle believed in the atomic world – when now we have the concept of the Higgs boson particle! Science helps us prove that there may just be a hidden compartment in the magician’s hat.

As for its implications for today - well, just look at the comment sections on the internet! We're allowed to be skeptics, to think that something we perceive might just be wrong. (hide spoiler)]

2. Given that nearly universal human customs (nomoi) are taken, therefore, to be “natural,” explain how exceptions can be dealt with.
(view spoiler)[>>> I think this is where superstition and religion come in. The thought of – “If you can’t explain it, then it is probably due to some mystical force.” This is obviously the reason Religion (well, more like Religious Faith) and Science is a rather combustible thing to mix. Faith makes people believe in preconceived notions of a something that explains the unexplainable. Science attempts to explain what Faith merely allows to be. (hide spoiler)]

3. Give examples of nearly universal customs that are brought about by essentially local conditions.
(view spoiler)[>>> Hmm. I don’t quite understand this question, but I assume this has something to do with human customs, yes? Like customs you see in almost every society (“universal”) that seems to be common enough? I suppose some examples would be property rights (I own this and you own that), family and growing up ((view spoiler)[Some may be more strict with their children than others, but essentially we all care for our young during their infancy periods. After all, a puppy dog has a better chance of living if left by itself than does a human child. This is what I think :) (hide spoiler)]), and a sort of governance (the need for a kind of authority, someone to uphold what society believes is right and just, etc). (hide spoiler)]

Additional comments later!

[DC]

Mark wrote: (view spoiler)["I'm really glad that you guys are reading up on the history of philosophy. The Pre-Socratics are of great interest to me, too! Their ideas helped lay the groundwork for the philosophical approach to monotheism (and shows man can know through the use of natural reason that there is a God and why there can be only one God). The work of the Pre-Socratics and the other pagan philosophers after them may be seen as preparation for the coming Good News. :-) " (hide spoiler)]
>>> Hmm, a religious angle. I haven’t actually considered this before :) But yes, it’s all very interesting. I do hope to see the historical line of thought regarding this, as we move along :D


Sarah wrote: (view spoiler)[" Hi people :) pasensya na medyo hindi nakakaparticipate. After ng defense namin, hopefully makapagcomment ulit dito :) Chapter 4 na ba ung readings?" (hide spoiler)]
>>> Hey Sarah! Good luck on the defense :) And yup, Chapter 4!


Ycel

Thanks for your talasalitaan post, by the way :D Though I don’t know, being a “metaphysicist” seems more scientific-sounding than “metaphysician”, which has a doctoral air. We are technically metaphysicists, right? :)


On the post of your answers to the guide Qs: (view spoiler)[

#1:

... The pre-Socratics are the source of the classical idea that the universe is composed of four elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire.
>>> Geek moment! (view spoiler)[Pre-Socratics as benders. Wow. (hide spoiler)]

But despite the CERN physicists’ achievement last year, a lot of us remain ignorant, much less skeptical, about the Higgs Boson. I would like to submit that this is because topics such as these remain exclusive to a select group of individuals and very few can appreciate physics especially when expressed in equation. And very few who can translate science for the layman. I so miss Carl Sagan. [Bill Bryson will do for now; I’ve yet to read Stephen Hawking. (hide spoiler)]
>>> I suppose that’s why I was skeptical about the thought of “Greek philosophy”, and how the conditions of that previous date had supposedly evolved Greek thought to make it the way it was. I have always been wary of the layman, since I’d have thought that what Socrates, Democritus and Aristotle have been talking about are imparted only to those who wanted to learn, not necessarily EVERYONE.

But you’re right. Up to now, even with Modern Science at our fingertips, a lot of us still remain, well, faithful to the old notions. And yes, very few can translate science for the layman… Which is a pity, really. (view spoiler)[And partly why I want to dabble into teaching someday… (hide spoiler)]


#3: Respect for elders (we’re still big on this I believe), respect for the law (highly doubtful although Filipinos are very respectful of the law outside our borders), respect for the environment (could be cyclical, we tend to trash the environment until we are penalized with heavy flooding, clean up our mess and then back slide, rinse and repeat).
>>> I want to talk more about this, but it probably isn’t the right place yet :)


I’ve known 3 persons who took philosophy as their major (2 of them armed with a master’s) and all 3 are quite incisive when they analyze issues (whether political, business, contemporary) so I guess it’s true that philosophy allows one to take a skeptical approach and provide a method that removes skepticism. Sigh. I’m making up for it now.
>>> Well, philosophy stems, after all, from a love of learning, right? I find it admirable that you're working on achieving that perspective :D Go Ycel go!


Here is the complete poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow quoted in the lecture:
[
A Psalm of Life
>>> So THAT'S the poem! I've encountered some lines before, but not quite the entire poem. It's beautiful. Thanks for posting it :)

Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.
<3 (hide spoiler)]


On commenting about my post: (view spoiler)[

LOL! This is so Douglas Adams :)
>>> #Proud :D

It will be a while before we met John Locke, so hold on to your horses!
>>> LOL, I AM excited about it. When Robinson was talking about all that moral objectivity stuff, it really did incite something in me. I am fascinated with the importance of culture in the entire realm of thought. BUT yes, later on :D

Well I guess that’s why there is such a thing as a lifelong learner. This business of studying does not really end if you think about it. For example, parenting may be natural, but when I became one and turned to my mom and mother-in-law for help, it turned out they didn’t know a lot of things! (Like breast feeding for example). So yes, I have to turn to books and the internet to learn.
>>> Wow, and parenting is supposedly a "natural" occurence! It's just funny how besides wanting to know the topic (e.g. parenting), you actually have to study how to study (e.g. should I go with seminars or with books? If seminars, which kind of seminar is best for me?) in order to better understand the topic. Well, that's how I interpreted it, anyway :)

(view spoiler)[But, I guess, that's how I personally operate sometimes too, without giving it much thought. I believe my sisters find it OC of me to do so, too, haha! Like how I'm lately approaching gardening. DC as a gardeNERD -> (view spoiler)[I started out with simply placing seeds on the ground, watching them grow, then placing them in pots. I then noticed that apparently I can't replicate it for ANY seed and ANY soil... So yeah, I read up on it, do experiments and the like. Later I find a method that works for me... Though since I’m still new to the whole thing, I’m still doing lots of trial-and-error :) (hide spoiler)] Or how some cook by "gut feel" and others by "recipe" (the great art VS science debate). Very interesting, now that I think about it. I do wonder: is this a thing that comes to us naturally? (hide spoiler)]

Democritus and his atomic relationships. (PFFFT.) [But I DID gave a little LOL on Robinson's mention of the buying/middle class. Hollah! (Dialectical materialism... *cough cough* Sorry, Ycel :D )
I’m sorry, what?
>>> Dialectical materialism is a Marxist concept... :)

What about David Hume’s “reason is the slave of passion as it should be?” This is one of the more perplexing philosophical utterances that is too dangerous to quote as it is very likely to be taken out of context.
>>> Very well. It's still a point that would be interesting to debate on... when we get there :)
(hide spoiler)]

[DC]

Topic: ANTIGONE FILM VIEWING ON JUNE 1


Hello everyone!

We'll be discussing Chapter 5: The Greek Tragedians on Man’s Fate soon. With this in mind, we would like to invite everyone to watch a film of Sophocles' play: Antigone. The 1961 black-and-white film, yes. It's on Youtube, by the way: www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yPFbccjKjY

Think of it as additional reference and resource. Think of it as something that could help give us an idea of Greek life and Greek tragedy. Think of it as a welcome break from all the too-deep-Philo-ARGH on the thread. Think of it as a chance to troll people who are too busy watching. (Wait, no, don't think about that.)

If you're available on June 1, Saturday, in the evening (maybe around 9pm? For confirmation!), we plan to watch the movie at the same time. No livestream, but there will probably be a chatroom. We'll just give the signal to press play at the same time, then off we go :) (view spoiler)[I've personally done this a number of times - the non-livestream version - with a few friends, and I have experienced successful joint film-viewing. We also HAVE done this watch-together thing in TFG before. You may check out our P&P joint viewing thread here: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... Needless to say, it was fun :) (hide spoiler)] I'd suggest you get a personal copy of the film, though, so you needn't rely on download speed when we watch it together :)

If you can't join us on the date, you can still check the movie out on your own. We could discuss it on this thread too :D

I'll be posting additional information about this later on. If you're ready to confirm your participation, do respond on this thread, or send me a personal message about it :)

Hope to see you on Saturday!

Cheers,
DC


PS: I was thinking whether we should also ready a copy of 300 too... You know, to watch after Antigone. It's Greek too, right? :D

[Angus]

04. The Pre-Socratics and the Ultimate Stuff of the Universe

Because there is no retreating, here I go!

(view spoiler)[

*What is there? There is whatever you can see. There may more than meets the eye. - Reminds me of the movie Mona Lisa Smile. Kirsten Dunst says, "Not everything is as it seems." I don't exactly recall the context why she said that, but yeah, what is there isn't what the eye alone could see. Which leads us to...

*The nondeceptive mode of discovery. - I don't think that our senses are exactly deceptive. It's just that they are limited. No, not even limited but just fit for the practical human life. I mean, what practical application could you use ultraviolet vision? Or probably we have been so used to the human vision that we have learned to live with the limited vista it offers.

*Nothing transcends the level of physicality. The soul as finer kind of atomic structure. - But I often thought of the transmigration of soul to be a transcendent event, not a reducing of a body part into some fine stuff. Wait, does a soul even have to be composed of something? Is that an ontological inquiry? @_@

*Is there right and wrong? Man is the measure of all things. Where are judgments grounded? The search for truth as a misguided quest. - Man, this is just great. When someone asks me for "the truth," this will come in handy. I will summon Robinson and blabber on.

*Unclarity of the subject and the shortness of human life. - Okay, I think I've been using this excuse not to ponder deeply on the questions posed here. Because I know that the human knowledge is limited and because there are things that are beyond our capacity, I just let it be. I mean, I am not even trying hard; I don't even attempt to reach that limit. Sorry if I can't be like your super philosophical friends who have a solution to almost any problem, but that's because I actually get scared that my brains will burst out. Seriously! And have you ever felt that your thoughts are just running so wild, linking from this to that, and just at the moment that you realize that they are actually streaming out from whatever part of your mind, you lose grasp of them. I wish there was some sort of exercise where I could hold on to these thoughts and let me at remember them.

*Pre-Socratic thoughts - Cosmological issues. - I seriously think we should build a glossary.

(hide spoiler)]

Regarding the simultaneous screening, I'm up for this. I am usually too lazy to get out of the house, so this works just fine. :)