Best books on Epicureans & Stoics, Fig Philosophy etc.

Best books on the Epicureans...

Something to get you through the next few months: leading modern stoic ⁦@mpigliucci⁩ on the best books on Stoicism ⁦@five_books⁩ https://t.co/iCtyVKDIar
(https://twitter.com/philosophybites/status/1339492602035531776?s=02)

==
Epictetus vs Jesus on Figs

The Difference Between Philosophy and Religion

The relationship between philosophies of life and religion is a complex one. I have argued on another occasion that they are not the same, primarily because one relies (mostly) on reason and the other (chiefly) on faith. Though of course there is quite a bit of good philosophy done by theologians, and a certain amount of assumptions in philosophical systems that need to be taken, if not exactly on faith, at least as granted axioms.

I also think that philosophies of life and religions have much in common because the latter must include a version of the former. Every religion has, at a minimum, two components: a metaphysics, that is, an account of how the world hangs together; and an ethics, that is, an account of how to live in the world. Those are precisely the two components also present in every philosophy of life, with the metaphysics either explicit or assumed as background.

Recently, a follower on Twitter — “Sunday Stoic” — threw my way a pertinent morsel that I couldn’t pass commenting on, both because it concerns the contrast between philosophy and religion, and because it is about figs out of season, the notion that inspires the title of this site.

The morsel in question comes from a well known passage in the Gospel of Mark:

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’ … In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!’ ‘Have faith in God,’ Jesus answered. ‘Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. — Mark 11:12–14 & 11:20–25

There are several interesting things to highlight here. In the first place, and most obviously, the fact that Jesus got impatient with the natural cycle of things (which, being God, he presumably established in the first place), and this is what led him to curse the fig tree. Second, I usually think of miracles as suspensions of the laws of nature that bring about positive results, but this is an example of a destructive miracle, so to speak. Third, Jesus clearly presents his disciples with a metaphysics very different from the Stoic one (and sort of reminiscent of the one underlying “The Secret”), according to which wishing, or really believing, something will actually make it happen (through the agency of God, in this case). Not at all the sort of cause-effect that the Stoics subscribe to.

Now let’s contrast Jesus with Epictetus. He uses the metaphor of figs in or out of season in two important passages of the Discourses:

Nothing important comes into being overnight; even grapes or figs need time to ripen. If you say that you want a fig now, I will tell you to be patient. First, you must allow the tree to flower, then put forth fruit; then you have to wait until the fruit is ripe. So if the fruit of a fig tree is not brought to maturity instantly or in an hour, how do you expect the human mind to come to fruition, so quickly and easily? — Discourses I, 15.7–8

and:

You must remind yourself that you love a mortal, and that nothing that you love is your very own; it is given you for the moment, not for ever nor inseparably, but like a fig or a bunch of grapes at the appointed season of the year, and if you long for it in winter you are a fool. So too if you long for your son or your friend, when it is not given you to have him, know that you are longing for a fig in winter time. — Discourses III, 24.86

The first passage is almost a direct rebuke of Jesus (not that Epictetus had the Christians in mind at the time, since they were still a small Jewish sect of no consequence in broader Roman society). He tells his students that good things naturally require time. Figs are excellent fruits, delicious and nutritious, but one has to wait for them to mature before one can enjoy them. The same, Epictetus says, goes for human abilities, particularly the ability to reason correctly, which of course is fundamental to the practice of Stoicism.

The second passage constitutes one of the crucial teachings of Stoic philosophy. This and similar ones from Epictetus are often taken as evidence by our critics that Stoicism is an uncaring and unemotional philosophy. But it takes quite a bit of wilful ignorance of the context to make such a charge. Epictetus is simply reminding us of the reality of things: everything passes, panta rhei, as Heraclitus famously put it. Which means that friends and relatives will also be gone at some point (and, of course, so will we). But this dose of frank realism is no reason for desperation. On the contrary, it’s an enticement to live hic et nunc, here and now. Now is the season to enjoy your friends, your daughter, your partner. Appreciate the beautiful, nutritious figs that life gives while they are there for you. If you wait too long, they’ll be gone, and you’ll be like a fool wishing for things that are impossible (like someone who thinks “that what they say will happen [because] whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.”)

Jesus was no god because gods, I think, don’t exist. But he certainly was a wise and good human being, on par with Socrates and Buddha. Contra so many so-called New Atheists I respect people who believe even though I disagree with them, and I do acknowledge that religion has done a lot of good in the world (and a lot of bad, but that goes for other ideologies as well). That said, the contrast I highlighted in this essay is precisely why I’ll take Epictetus over Jesus any day. Besides, since Epictetus doesn’t claim divine origins, and the Discourses are not scripture, I am free to part ways with him whenever I think he got things wrong. As Seneca splendidly put it:

Will I not walk in the footsteps of my predecessors? I will indeed use the ancient road — but if I find another route that is more direct and has fewer ups and downs, I will stake out that one. Those who advanced these doctrines before us are not our masters but our guides. The truth lies open to all; it has not yet been taken over. Much is left also for those yet to come. — Letters XXXIII.11

P.S. I’m aware of the existence of a number of theological interpretation of Mark’s passages, including the traditional one — that the episode simply demonstrates Jesus’ power over nature — and the reformed one, according to which the fig tree represents the Jewish nation, which is no longer producing God’s glory, and needs therefore (rather ominously, given the events of two millennia later) to “wither.” None of this changes my arguments above, since they focus on the deployment of contrasting metaphors about figs out of season.

No good Humean is racist

Hume's racism is not merely detachable from his philosophy, it actually goes against its spirit and substance. No good Humean today could share his racist views, for reasons Hume himself would have recognised as good.
https://t.co/NDNbhNtjcQ
(https://twitter.com/JulianBaggini/status/1306520266789404673?s=02)

Socratic dating

https://t.co/UhAFCHBvPy https://t.co/qpkTqG9fqn
(https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1341104183399727106?s=02)

"White fragility"

We had an interesting conversation on race and democracy the other night in Democracy in America, prompting this post in that class. It's something we'll want to talk about here too, though probably not today. jpo

Last night's conversation was probably difficult for some of us, but we as a nation are going to have to have it... at least until enough of us are "woke" enough to see our actual history and its continuing distortions of the democratic prospect in America.

“The simplistic idea that racism is limited to individual intentional acts committed by unkind people is at the root of virtually all white defensiveness on this topic.”

“It’s been said that racism is so American that when we protest racism, some assume we’re protesting America.”

“For those of us who work to raise the racial consciousness of whites, simply getting whites to acknowledge that our race gives us advantages is a major effort. The defensiveness, denial, and resistance are deep.”

“The key to moving forward is what we do with our discomfort. We can use it as a door out—blame the messenger and disregard the message. Or we can use it as a door in by asking, Why does this unsettle me? What would it mean for me if this were true?”

“The United States was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. Yet the nation began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, and black women were denied access to that right until 1964. The term identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality. We have yet to achieve our founding principle, but any gains we have made thus far have come through identity politics.”

“I was co-leading a workshop with an African American man. A white participant said to him, "I don't see race; I don't see you as black." My co-trainer's response was, "Then how will you see racism?" He then explained to her that he was black, he was confident that she could see this, and that his race meant that he had a very different experience in life than she did. If she were ever going to understand or challenge racism, she would need to acknowledge this difference. Pretending that she did not noticed that he was black was not helpful to him in any way, as it denied his reality - indeed, it refused his reality - and kept hers insular and unchallenged. This pretense that she did not notice his race assumed that he was "just like her," and in so doing, she projected her reality onto him. For example, I feel welcome at work so you must too; I have never felt that my race mattered, so you must feel that yours doesn't either. But of course, we do see the race of other people, and race holds deep social meaning for us.”
― Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

The appalling wives of country music stars, "on the same level"

Another Un-pretty face of American democracy

"In country music, you're a fan for life, and you're hungry for every morsel about your favorite artist," said Beverly Keel, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University. "It's a lifelong relationship between a country fan and artist, and that extends to the spouse. And it's a two-way street … whereas in other forms of music, artists are on a pedestal, in country, the artist and fan are on the same level."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/02/01/wives-country-star-instagram-social-media/

Pyrrho's pigs

"Skepticism began with Pyrrho of Elis, who lived from 365 BCE to about 275 BCE. He wrote nothing, as far as we know, and offered his followers not a system but a manner of living. Pyrrho studied the ideas of the great philosophers and came to the conclusion that a really smart person could convince him that any substance was the primary matter of the universe. What is more, all the philosophers’ systems were vulnerable to argument. Pyrrho believed that nothing can be known, because the opposite of every statement could be asserted with plausibility. Also, our senses and minds provide false or merely narrow information. We should attempt to have no opinions. Since we know nothing for certain, we must behave as such, affirming and denying nothing, no matter what the subject. We thus stand aloof from life and thereby attain peace of mind. Not much of Pyrrho’s recommended manner of living is known and, amusingly, what we know conflicts. There is one tradition in which he seems to have been trying to shed human emotion. In that tradition, he was marked by an imperturbability and “oriental indifference” that, at times, had him pass by friends without noticing them. Once, when he was attacked by a wild dog and scurried up a tree, he later apologized to friends for his fear and announced that it was difficult to strip oneself of humanity. In the other tradition, he was not trying to strip himself of humanity but merely to live a moderate life. There is a story of his calming passengers on a storm-tossed ship by pointing out that the pigs on board were quietly munching their food. He recommended such serenity for all. Here Pyrrho seems less the indifferent ascetic and more the caring teacher. Stories of his life support both versions: In 334 BCE he joined the court of Alexander the Great (Aristotle had left the young man, after an eight-year stay, only about a year earlier) and traveled with Alexander to India, where he studied with the philosophers and ascetics of the Indus Valley. In the same court was a philosopher who was a follower of Democritus—a materialist, an atomist, and a believer that sense experience is always flawed by such things as tricks of light and tricks of the human body. When Alexander died, Pyrrho went back to Elis and lived with his midwife sister, and although he taught philosophy to large crowds and regular students, he also helped out at home by cleaning house, washing pigs, and taking fowl to market. Elis named him a high priest. He lived to the age of ninety and, in his honor, the city instated tax exemption for all philosophers. His best student, Timon, was more of a cutup than Pyrrho, writing satires that portrayed anyone who seemed to know anything as an arrogant buffoon. Yet he also wrote beautifully on the Pyrrhonic approach to knowing the world. It was Timon who wrote, “I do not lay it down that honey is sweet, but I admit that it appears to be so.” Timon had a wife and kids, and loved food, drink, and a good time as well as philosophy and solitude. Early Pyrrhonism was ascetic, but not exclusively so. Skepticism became more important in the second century BCE when the philosopher Arcesilaus brought it into the Platonic Academy. This created what we know as the Middle Academy and is the reason that Academic philosophy became a synonym for Skepticism. We do not know much about his opinions on theism either, but his successor, Carneades of Cyrene, left us much more to work with. Carneades was arguably the best philosopher in the five hundred years after Aristotle, and his contribution to Skepticism was immeasurable because he replaced the refusal to believe anything with a sophisticated notion of probability. What he said was that we cannot know anything for certain, but we can carefully determine whether one conclusion is more likely than another. This allowed the Skeptics to bring all their studious doubt to bear on philosophical questions, whereas the old model restricted them to judicious silence. Carneades did not insist that the gods were a fairy tale, but he unraveled most of the common proofs that they exist. Theists often said, for instance, that there must be gods since so many people had seen them and had described them in a similar manner. As we have seen, even the rationalist Epicurus bothered to offer an empirical explanation for such claims. Carneades dismissed the reports of sightings, both ancient and contemporary, as stories with no basis in reality. Against the claim that the universal belief in gods proved that they existed, Carneades responded that this proved only that people believed in gods—another proof would be needed to show that the gods exist."

From "Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson" by Jennifer Hecht  https://a.co/eUxuBR3

Julian Baggini

From Julian Baggini's website. [His other books... his opinion of cancel culture and the old dead philosophers...]

 How The World Thinks

Shortlisted for the 2019 British Academy Al-Rodhan Prize for Global Cultural Understanding.

“Terrific. The intellectual and spiritual generosity of this book makes it an essential text for our fractious and dangerously divided era.” Richard Holloway

“Always intriguing and often illuminating.” Simon Blackburn. Literary Review

“Eye-opening.” Prospect Books of the Year

“Engaging, urbane and humane. … In our embattled age, Baggini’s self-awareness, acuity and willingness to listen and learn point valuably away from parochial myopia and towards productive dialogue.” Tim Whitmarsh, the Guardian

“This bold, fascinating book seeks to inhabit other philosophical traditions, with humility but without patronisingly exempting them from the critique he applies to ours.” Jane O’Grady, Financial Times

“Julian Baggini’s new book is so timely and so important. … This, I would say, is his best to date.” Stuart Kelly, Scotland on Sunday

“Enlightening, perspective-shifting, mind-expanding – a superb tour through world philosophies with an erudite and friendly guide.” Sarah Bakewell

“A marvellous and original introduction to a complex field, highly personal, entertaining, fact-filled, and even entertaining. Worth reading and re-reading.” Marina Vaizey, theartsdesk

“An entertaining (if not entirely impartial) journey through some of the world’s philosophies that should endear it to the general reader, while philosophers weary of western parochialism will find much of interest, too.” Lloyd Strickland, Times Higher Education Supplement

“A book that is as ambitious as it is accessible.” Trouw (review of Dutch translation)

“There to fill the Sapiens-size hole in your life. ” The Observer

In this global overview of philosophy, Julian Baggini travels the world to provide a wide-ranging map of human thought, exploring the philosophies of Japan, India, China and the Muslim world, as well as the lesser-known oral traditions of Africa and Australia’s first peoples. Interviewing thinkers from around the globe, Baggini asks questions such as: why is the West is more individualistic than the East? What makes secularism a less powerful force in the Islamic world than in Europe? And how has China resisted pressures for greater political freedom? Offering deep insights into how different regions operate, and paying as much attention to commonalities as to differences, Baggini shows that by gaining greater knowledge of how others think we take the first step to a greater understanding of ourselves.

A video of a talk about the book in the Radboud Reflects series in the Netherlands

Also discussed on Tim Haigh’s Book’s Podcast, Newstalk’s Talking Books with Susan Cahill, The Institute of Art and Ideas Philosophy for Our Times podcast (Soundcloud or iTunes)

The art of thinking

“The art of remembering is the art of thinking... When we wish to fix a new thing in either our own mind or a pupil's, our conscious effort should not be so much to impress and retain it as to connect it with something else already there. The connecting is the thinking; and if we attend clearly to the connection, the connected thing will certainly be likely to remain within recall.”

― William James, Talks to Teachers on Psychology and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals

==

How We Think: John Dewey on the Art of Reflection and Fruitful Curiosity in an Age of Instant Opinions and Information Overload

“To maintain the state of doubt and to carry on systematic and protracted inquiry — these are the essentials of thinking.”

BY MARIA POPOVA

Decades before Carl Sagan published his now-legendary Baloney Detection Kit for critical thinking, the great philosopher, psychologist, and education reformer John Dewey (October 20, 1859–June 1, 1952) penned the definitive treatise on the subject — a subject all the more urgently relevant today, in our age of snap judgments and instant opinions. In his 1910 masterwork How We Think (free download | public library), Dewey examines what separates thinking, a basic human faculty we take for granted, from thinking well, what it takes to train ourselves into mastering the art of thinking, and how we can channel our natural curiosity in a productive way when confronted with an overflow of information... (continues)

 

Skeptic Magazine

Michael Shermer's skeptical manifesto

"...But what does it mean to be skeptical? Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” 

[Actually he said he didn't claim to know what he didn't know. In other words, he acknowledged the limits of his -- and our -- present knowledge. He believed we should admit our present ignorance, to motivate the ongoing search for knowledge, truth, and wisdom. More extreme skeptics like Pyrrho would say they could not even know that they knew nothing, or that there are or are not limits, or that knowledge, truth, and wisdom are good things to pursue, etc. They simply said they and we would be happier if we remained permanently non-committal about that, and about everything. But, we might ask, did they think they knew this? Or even believe it? They'd never admit so, but what do you think?  -jpo]

But this is not a practical position to take. Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are false. Other claims, such as hypnosis and chaos theory, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. This manifesto — a statement of purpose of sorts — explores these themes further..." (continues)

Skeptic.com... current issue

Pyrrho not an idiot

"Pyrrho ignored all the apparent dangers of the world because he questioned whether they really were dangers, ‘avoiding nothing and taking no precautions, facing everything as it came, wagons, precipices, dogs’. Luckily he was always accompanied by friends who could not quite manage the same enviable lack of concern and so took care of him, pulling him out of the way of oncoming traffic and so on. They must have had a hard job of it, because ‘often . . . he would leave his home and, telling no one, would go roaming about with whomsoever he chanced to meet’. PYRRHO Two centuries after Pyrrho’s death, one of his defenders tossed aside these tales and claimed that ‘although he practised philosophy on the principles of suspension of judgement, he did not act carelessly in the details of everyday life’. This must be right. Pyrrho may have been magnificently imperturbable—Epicurus was said to have admired him on this account, and another fan marvelled at the way he had apparently ‘unloosed the shackles of every deception and persuasion’. But he was surely not an idiot. He apparently lived to be nearly ninety, which would have been unlikely if the stories of his recklessness had been true."

"The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance )by Anthony Gottlieb https://a.co/91FYRH

throwing in the sponge

"Why do people become Sceptics and refuse to commit themselves? Because, according to Sextus, they have found that a welcome wave of tranquillity tends to follow in the wake of such open-mindedness. This discovery was, he thinks, first made by accident. The earliest Sceptics, says Sextus, were hoping to find tranquillity by finding out the truth about things. They were unable to find the truth, so they gave up and suspended judgement—whereupon they instantly started to feel better. Thus it turns out to be the suspension of judgement, and not the pursuit of inquiry, which brings contentment. Sextus illustrated the point with an anecdote about a painter called Apelles. Apelles was painting a horse and wanted to show foam at the animal’s mouth. He tried all sorts of brush techniques until he lost his temper, picked up a sponge that he used to wipe his brushes, and flung it at the picture. Lo and behold, the impact of the sponge produced exactly the effect he had been trying for. Just so with the Sceptics: throwing in the sponge turned out to do the trick. ‘When they suspended judgement, tranquillity followed as it were fortuitously, as a shadow follows a body.’"

"The Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance by Anthony Gottlieb https://a.co/azSRK5j

the educated mind

"Skepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind."
- John Dewey (born #onthisday, or, was he?) https://t.co/Zr2a96fLC1

— Ethics in Bricks (@EthicsInBricks) October 20, 2020 https://t.co/1kTGmOF0Fq
(https://twitter.com/UNNJamie/status/1318623697704570885?s=02)

Aristotle tweets

 One of the better old dead philosophers on Twitter (Pyrrho has an account, but not many followers)...

See new Tweets

Following

Aristotle

@AristotlesStgra

I am a philosopher and scientist born in the city of Stagira. Preferred pronouns: αὐτός/αὐτόν. (profile portrait by Hitoshi Iwaaki)

Pinned Tweet

Aristotle

@AristotlesStgra

·

Jun 24, 2018

Get in touch if you'd like to ask about or discuss anything I've written. And no, I won't reproduce my dialogues. You people lost them and now you just have to deal with that.

Update from the pod prof

Preparing for my class is now a hoot! Just listened again to 2 podcast episodes from @philosophybites - one on moral relativism and one on the Socratic method, all while drinking tea and getting ready. My syllabus in podcast seems a win - win! https://t.co/9y7XGz1N63
(https://twitter.com/ranilillanjum/status/1356858501696544768?s=02)