Epicurus is the Single Most Influential Philosopher of all Time

Deleted User

It is remarked that people fall in one of two categories, generally speaking: Platonism or Aristotelianism. I assert that this is not true. You fall into one of, or a mixture of three (open for change of opinion): Platonism, Aristotelianism, or Epicureansim. Metaphysically these categories translate to: Mysticism, Logical Positivism, or Materialism. Epistemologically these categories translate to: Revelation, Deduction, and Induction. Ethically these categories translate to: Deontology, Virtue, and Objectivism.

A few things:

Epicureanism is clearly superior to its Greek counterparts, as in inarguably, both in terms of subjective result, as well as objective sustainability. You might also think of how these schools translate to politics: Statism, Mixed Economy, Anarchy. Anarchy being clearly preferable to anyone who does not incorporate other human beings into the category of property, and is the predominant mode of being in all interpersonal interactions. In fact, it is so predominant that recent research has unveiled to me something very, very important philosophically that demands the attention of ALL who choose to come to this discussion to debate, and why I am speaking so forcefully here. That being the following:

1. Epicureanism is the SINGLE most important and influential philosophical movement in the history of Human Kind. (which isn't to say the most consequential)
2. All free nations on the planet are fundamentally predicated on Epicureanism. (Thomas Jefferson was LITERALLY a self-professed Epicurean)
3. Communism, Social-Contract theory, Utilitarinism, Objectivism, and the modern Westphalian State are ALL plagiarisms, or adaptations of Epicurean philosophical concepts at base value.

The first commune in history was called The Garden, and it was a large piece of property that Epicurus purchased in Athens with a friend, which he then proceeded to invite all of his friends to live with him there. This experiment, and the ones that emerged in its shadow are the ONLY, not just successful, but thriving communist experiments in the history of the world, to my knowledge (open to new info). In fact, The Garden was so successful, that even as Athenians were starving in the wake of war, The Garden remained fed by their own labor, and through distribution of proper, rationally alloted portions. Communes of this kind rapidly spread over all of the Mediterranean, even into Turkey and flourished.

How? How could they flourish when we know what such experiments have produced in the past century alone? Millions of dead humans, the Human Consciousness valued so minutely that any sacrificial number was justified. I'll tell you. These communes, the real ones that aren't a psuedo-philosopher's (Marx) bastardized, pagan-adapted, humanity negating version of the idea, operated on the pretense of the pursuit of philosophy, friendship, monetary moderation, virtue revision, mutual recognition of the value of the Human Consciousness, humane treatment of slaves and women (even welcoming them to study philosophy and more at The Garden; WOMEN and SLAVES, no shit!), productive engagement, and the pursuit of rational self interest. Meaning, not only is Marx a plagiarising, pseudo-philosopher, but Rand also plagiarised these concepts; although she gave empirical explication on them that are among the most sophisticated philosophical explorations to date. Furthermore, every legitimate ethical theory, with the exception of Virtue Ethics, to date is predicated on Epicurean concepts. (inquire to find out more from me, or hit some research)

Moreover, the United States, and all of its Westphalian copy-cats, are predicated on the exact ideas that led to the flourishing of what I shall henceforth call Non-Bullshit-Communes, or real communism lol. The first two Amendments, written by the Epicurean Thomas Jefferson, ARE Epicureanism distilled into rules the government cannot violate. And it is to this recognition of what is already our own individual entitlement and ownership of, our Consciousness and all contents therein, that we owe our well-being to, apropos statehood, for the time being.

To continue, Epicureanism, and Non-Bullshit-Communes by extension, flourished in Magna Graecia, Rome, and beyond for hundreds of years. Seeing the amount of progress that instantiating these ideas into law has produced in 200 years, it stands to reason that humanity's greatest setback was not, in fact, the fall of the Western Empire, or the Crusades, or the Protestant Reformation, but the decline of Epicureanism, which the Enlightenment was predicated upon- and plagiarised ad nauseum- which by proxy precipitated the American and French Revolutions. So what happend?

Did Epicureanism vanish? Did it decline out of unsustainability like its bullshit copies in the modern age? Did vice corrupt The Gardens of the world and send them into depravity? Did they dissolve into violence? Not one fucking bit.

You see, The Garden was destroyed violently. For much of Roman history, Epicureanism, alongside Stoicism, was able to live in mutual coexistence with competeing ideologies. But, something happened: Constantine and the Council of Nicea wed zealous Mysticism and state power, fused them into a behemoth of unspeakable consequence, consequence that the human race may never recover from, consequence that has vitiated the philosophical, and by extension the scientific arts for more than 2000 years with no end in sight. The Epicureans were hunted, killed, suppressed, displaced, and defeated, not with intellect, logic, rationality, morality, and the Human Consciousness, but with the fucking sword. Thus, those who live by the sword, die by the sword. As you can see on the Eastern front today, the sword comes round once more, the result of the philosophies that dominate the minds of people who regard others as their property, and not bearers of the Universe's greatest gift of nature: The Inviolable Human Consciousness, which the Epicureans valued above all as the source of happiness, wisdom, productivity, and virtue.

Needless to say, the discovery of this information has irritated and confounded me greatly. I wish to discuss it with you all. However, understand this: If you come here with detractions, disagreements, or otherwise different opinions than what have been established in this thread, prepare to defend them with as much intellectual might as you can mustert, as I am not here to play around on this subject. I welcome all of you, kindly, nonetheless to join me in discussing the impact of this philosophy on the world and Ethics as a broad topic.

Thanks for stopping by!

Garrett

Some basic sources:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/
https://classicalwisdom.com/philosophy/epicureanism-original-hippie-commune-birth-american-dream/
https://societyofepicurus.com/life-in-epicurean-communities/

dimosthenis9

↪Garrett Travers

Epicurus was a great philosopher indeed. And it influenced other minds as he was influenced by other minds also.
But being dogmatic about these issues and using words like clearly, for sure, SINGLE, one and only etc isn't the right attitude. There is nothing "single" in these matters.

The movements you referred as Epicurean effect were influenced and mixed with many other movements and schools of thought all these years followed Epicurus. So you can never praise only one for that. They are general achievements of the global humanitarian tank of thought. It's more complicated.

Ciceronianus

My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence.

I have very little quarrel with Epicureanism generally, though I prefer Stoicism, and think I agree with you on the terrible consequences of the suppression of pagan philosophy and religion commencing with the reign of Constantine, but would think the increasing focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe.

Deleted User

But being dogmatic about these issues and using words like "clearly, for sure, SINGLE, one and only etc isn't the right attitude. There is nothing "single" in these matters. — dimosthenis9

I suspected such a protest would arise, however, pointing to something you do not like in a statement, is not itself an argument. So, why is that the wrong approach? Why, clearly, the wrong one?

I am aware of the multiplicity of philosophical and ideological influences on history, none more powerful than Christianity, I'm drawing attention to the superiority of the philosophy in quality and outcomes, to the rest. I'm particularly attemoting to draw attention to the murderers of Epicureanism, that being jsut that same institutionalized religion just mentioned. For superiority example, the most wealthy and prosperous societiy in the history of the Human Race is directly predicated on Epicurean philosophy. The most influential elements of the Enlightnment are either predicated on it, or plagiarised permutations of it, including the social contract and the primacy of inductive analysis. That's what I'm highlighting.

Deleted User

My understanding is Epicurus and his followers discouraged participation in politics. Yet it seems you emphasize its relation to and impact upon political systems/theories in arguing for its influence. — Ciceronianus

No, I clearly said it most resembles Anarchy.

focus on politics we see in Western history indicates that Epicureanism is less influential than you believe. — Ciceronianus

Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function, which is why America has been as successful as what Epicurean, Non-Bullshit-Communes were in the ancient world. And, America is the most influential institution in the history of the Human Race, as well. Not to mention, as I said in the post, there isn't an ethical philosophy to date that doesn't plagiarise Epicurean thought, except for those which came before it. This includes Marxism and Utilitarianism. So, yes, it's beyond influential; I'd say it's clearly the most influential of all time, and in my opinion the superior philosophy from the ancient world, and yes, I mean to assert that with force.

dimosthenis9

why is that the wrong approach? Why, clearly, the wrong one? — Garrett Travers

Stated it already in my previous post. Never used the word "clearly" though.

Deleted User

Stated it already in my previous post. Never used the word "clearly" though. — dimosthenis9

I was asking you to explain clearly, why it wasn't the right approach, which you stated as a matter of fact, which is to say "clearly." A clear explanation as follow-up from the one I addressed would do well.

Ciceronianus

Oh, it has most certainly lost a great deal of ground. But the U.S. Constitution, and by extension the copy-cat states it produced, is an Epicurean document for an Epicurean society at base function, — Garrett Travers

The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights. The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think. The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility. "Rights" were in large part a fiction (when not sanctioned by law) indulged in during the Enlightenment and since that time.

I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society.

Deleted User

The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence for that matter, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizens which Revolutionary France created, are based on the concept of human or natural rights. — Ciceronianus

Which is directly derived from Epicurean philosophy, no kidding: http://www.johnjthrasher.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Reconciling-Justice-and-Pleasure-in-Epicurean-Contractarianism.pdf

The concept of such "rights" was foreign to both Epicureanism and Stoicism, I think. — Ciceronianus

Yes, "rights" as a concept is Enlightenment, roughly speaking. But, the concept is a direct derivative of Epicurean Contractarianism, no shit. We quite possibly owe our lives to this philosopher, I'm not even remotely confabulating.

The Epicurean and the Stoic weren't motivated by a concern for their rights or the rights of others in their quest for tranquility. — Ciceronianus

Yes, true. But, what you'll notice in function, is that any action you perform is hinged on the proposition that the only thing that is going to stop you is force, which is a direct violation of Epicurean Ethics. The concept of "rights" had to be generated, because of states and their fucking incessant insistence on regarding humans as their property. Without force, rights aren't necessary; Ill just be living and everyone can go to hell if they have an issue with it. See what I'm saying?

I think that you're being anachronistic when you call the Constitution an Epicurean document, or the U.S. of the time an Epicurean society. — Ciceronianus

I'm quite literally not. The First 2 amendements are the instantiation of limitations on the part of the government from violating one's Epicurean pursuit of happiness, knowledge, wealth, and overall homeostasis. Jefferson, who wrote the document was a self-professed Epicurean: http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/jefflet.html

So, good arguments, really. However, they don't have relavence post scrutiny. Did you have any other thoughts on this? I'm really excited about this topic.

SkyLeach

↪Garrett Travers

My personal philosophy has many intersections
with Epicurianism but on critical and pivotal points we diverge.

The most important one is that Epicureans espouse belief while I eschew it
entirely. The entire premise of good and evil is predicated on universal
morality rather than relative enlightened ethics.

My mind must have a bias. It's an essential component of function. I must
therefore lean towards one probable truth over another in order to form any
opinions. If I (or anyone) wishes to retain their mental plasticity it is
essential that they examine all information from multiple perspectives,
however, and that is impossible if one embraces belief over probability.

Of course if one speaks English then it's nearly impossible to avoid using the
word belief or I believe since it is so tightly entwined with talking or
writing about perspectives.

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything?

What matters to a philosopher is what's true, not who or what influenced who.

Epicurus thought death was not a harm to the one who dies. That's obviously false, is it not?

Death is a very significant harm - surely the most significant of all?

He arrived at his highly counter-intuitive conclusion by combining a very plausible principle about harm -namely, that, to be harmed, you need to exist at the time of the harm - with the assumption that death marks the cessation of our existence, and in this way concluded that death was not a harm (he had another argument too, but it appeals to a far less plausible principle about a harm).

That's not a very good argument though, regardless of how influential it has been (indeed, the form the influence has taken as been to try and locate the fault in it). It's not a very good argument because the conclusion is so counter-intuitive that you need both premises to be extremely strong such that rejecting either would be more counter-intuitive than accepting the conclusion. That is simply not the case with either premise. Thus, a rational person will reject one or other of the premises rather than draw the conclusion. That is, the fact their combination leads to that conclusion is good evidence that at least one of them is false.

So he's quite a bad philosopher, however influential he might have been.

Ciceronianus

↪Garrett Travers

I'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case. So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power.

I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others. I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness.

If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility, though--if in other words the goal of government is to facilitate people in following Epicurus' teachings--we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals. In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans. That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens.

You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights.

Deleted User

The most important one is that Epicureans espouse belief while I eschew it
entirely. The entire premise of good and evil is predicated on universal
morality rather than relative enlightened ethics. — SkyLeach

Yes, mysticism dominated philosophy back then. However, the Epicureans were the first to separate themselves from the paradigm. Epicurus encouraged piety, but more as a place holder rather than a deontology. So, even though folks like you and I are coming from the modern understanding of non-mysticism, the Epicureans can be credited with getting that ball rolling. And also for getting the ball rolling on the sciences and inductive arts that have revealed as much to us.

My mind must have a bias. It's an essential component of function. I must
therefore lean towards one probable truth over another in order to form any
opinions. If I (or anyone) wishes to retain their mental plasticity it is
essential that they examine all information from multiple perspectives,
however, and that is impossible if one embraces belief over probability. — SkyLeach

I like you. Most people on this website are mystical in their psycho-epistemological approach. I share your predisposition, and take you a step further to assert that consciousness demands it, as to not do so would be to violate its nature and purpose.

Of course if one speaks English then it's nearly impossible to avoid using the
word belief or I believe since it is so tightly entwined with talking or
writing about perspectives. — SkyLeach

Yes, the way around this issue is to do what you have done and explain what you mean using ambiguous words.

Deleted User

I don't understand what philosophical point you are making. What has influence got to do with anything? — Bartricks

A fine question, my friend. In almost all cases of such an emphasis, you and I would be in accord. However, I wanted, I desired to draw attention to this, because the philosophy and its people have been so maltreated, and because it is misrepresented to such a degree, and because it is superior to the Socratics, and because our Constitution is founded upon it, and because that Constitution founded on those principles produced the most prosperous nation in planetary history, and because Marx plagiarised it, and because Locke did, and Rand did, and Mill did, etc. The point I am making to begin with, is only that this is seriously important to the philosophical arts, and it is likely that Church persecution of the philosophy kept us in darkness for centuries.

What matters to a philosopher is what's true, not who or what influenced who. — Bartricks

I genuinely agree.

Epicurus thought death was not a harm to the one who dies. That's obviously false, is it not? — Bartricks

Well, no. To clarify, I don't necessarily take everything Epicurus said to be gospel, just throwing that out there. But, essentially, no, it isn't a pain. It's not as if you are around to experience your own death. Leading up to dying may be painful, but not death itself. Pain is a neurological phenomenon, and death is the end of neurological phenomena.

He arrived at his highly counter-intuitive conclusion by combining a very plausible principle about harm -namely, that, to be harmed, you need to exist at the time of the harm - with the assumption that death marks the cessation of our existence, and in this way concluded that death was not a harm (he had another argument too, but it appeals to a far less plausible principle about a harm). — Bartricks

This is a correct assertion from dear Epicurus, neurologically speaking.

That's not a very good argument though, regardless of how influential it has been (indeed, the form the influence has taken as been to try and locate the fault in it). It's not a very good argument because the conclusion is so counter-intuitive that you need both premises to be extremely strong such that rejecting either would be more counter-intuitive than accepting the conclusion. — Bartricks

No, I don't think so. All you need is knowledge of the function of the brain. It's crazy to think that he was thinking on this level almost 3000 years ago. He really was right.

That is simply not the case with either premise. Thus, a rational person will reject one or other of the premises rather than draw the conclusion. That is, the fact their combination leads to that conclusion is good evidence that at least one of them is false. — Bartricks

No. It may happen to be the case in a logical analysis of this particular argument, however I haven't checked. If you post the actual argument for me, I'll check it for validity via truth table. But, either way he was technically correct.

So he's quite a bad philosopher, however influential he might have been. — Bartricks

I think his copy-cats have a separate opinion. He's been plagiarised more than any other philosopher I can think of.

Deleted User

'll have to read the article you cite, but I think Epicureanism like Stoicism teaches that happiness, or the good life, is in large part dependent on a person not acting in a manner which exposes us to harm or disturbance, as reason tells us that we won't achieve tranquility, happiness, and peacefulness in that case. — Ciceronianus

Yes, one can liken it to the inclination of species, and systems universally, to either seek, or naturally progress toward homeostasis, or equilibrium. The physics concept is regression toward the mean, and it is a universal force that is inviolable.

So, we shouldn't engage in conflict with others, or harm them, seek power over others, covet riches, fame and power. — Ciceronianus

Humans cannot be logically, rationally, scientifically, or symetrically concluded to be the object property by other human beings. Conflict, power, covetousness, and harm of others is a direct violation of the Human Consciousness of exactly that kind of propertarian persuasion, and requires evil to be justified. Fame is considered to be useless at best, harmful at worst, as it leads one away from the actually activities that provide meaning in life: friendship, pursuit of wisdom, philosophy, and homeostasis.

I don't think Epicureans or Stoics were concerned with what a good government would be; in fact, I think that to a sage of either school it ultimately wouldn't matter what a government was or did. — Ciceronianus

Governments are anti-philosophy, fuck them. The Epicureans share my opinion, by and large. The Stoics believed you should not resent them, or actively participate, unless that was simply the role you had been placed in, e.g. Marcus Aurelius.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that government must nonetheless be of a particular kind in order for us to achieve the Epicurean (maybe Stoic too) goals or that particular forms of government are more conducive to achievement of those goals than others. — Ciceronianus

Yes. Governments have only one ethical permutation. That being the protection from violation of the Human Consciousness, and mediating disputes between conscious individuals in pursuit of the same goal. Question any other position asserted to you at all times, skeptically. Communes have arisen in the spirit of Epicurus, stolen from him by the Christians by the way, that were and are just as peaceful and prosperous as the Epicurean Gardens, none of which have required a government. That includes over 400 thousand Epicurean Gardens throughout history before they were murdered and their communes turned into monastaries. The Hutterite and Amish communes etc. None of these require a government. It is, and always has been, a lie to implement control over the Human Consciousness, nothing more. Think I am exaggerating, turn your eyes to the East right now.

I assume those governments would be less intrusive than others in the sense that their citizens wouldn't be compelled to act in a manner contrary to the achievement of tranquility and happiness. — Ciceronianus

Yes. Any form of government compulsion that isn't compulsion to not violate the Human Consciousness is tyranny. I don't care if we're talking parking tickets, j-walking, or just stopping to ask me a few uninvited and unwarranted questions. The Epicureans lived peacefully, prosperously, homeostatically, and without violence as a motivator.

If the goal of government is to promote happiness and tranquility — Ciceronianus

It is not. It is to get the fuck out of our way so that we may pursue our own happiness and equilibrium, and to fend off those who would seek to get in it.

we have to address the possibility that in that case a government would have to be intrusive enough to prevent citizens from preventing other citizens from achieving Epicurean goals — Ciceronianus

No. Your individual deontological ethics DO NOT expand beyond your purview. So for example, let's say we develop such a society here in the states. Tyranny in the Middle East is not my problem. It is, in fact, the deontology of those being oppressed to liberate themselves, and pursue equilibrium. If violations of the Human Consciousness are occuring within our purview, then perhaps such action is on the table, but the acknowledgement of such an obligation would need to uniformly consensual, and rationally planned to the absolute best of our ability. I also have no interest in liberating people who were interested in establishing a new state that wasn't like our society. In other words, no, it's far more complicated.

In other words, compelling citizens to act like Epicureans — Ciceronianus

No, if you're not on board with pursuing meaning, equilibrium, virtue, wisdom, philosophy, knowledge, and harmony, you can see your ass out of our society, full stop. Ostracism will always be a human right to employ.

That would mean citizens should be prohibited from engaging in conflict with others, acquisition of wealth and power, to the detriment of others, etc. and doing anything which would inhibit the peace and tranquility of their fellow citizens. — Ciceronianus

Citizens wouldn't be there if they weren't dedicated to non-violence and the transmission of that value to people born within that did not agree to the stipulation before entering, as we did as founders.

You may say that's where the concept of rights comes in to play. It may, within limits. But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights. — Ciceronianus

Rights were so little of a necessity in Epicurean societies, that they weren't even brought up. All that was required was Epicurean Contractarianism, from whence our Enlightenment understanding was plagiarised and credited to the wrong people. A mishap I'll not be forgetting, or permitting the ignorance of any longer.

But the well-being of fellow citizens has never been of much significance to those who claim to have rights. — Ciceronianus

That's because the "well-being" of other citizens is :
1. Ambiguous to anyone who isn't the person making the claim of necessity for well-being
2. Not my responsibility provide
3. Your responsibility to acquire
4. Mandated by the government
5. Provided through homicide-backed robbery

So, there's issues.

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

But, essentially, no, it isn't a pain. It's not as if you are around to experience your own death. Leading up to dying may be painful, but not death itself. Pain is a neurological phenomenon, and death is the end of neurological phenomena. — Garrett Travers

You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible.
One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' condition (that to be harmed, you need to experience the harm in question). The other appeals to the 'existence' condition (that to be harmed, you need to exist at the time). The experience condition is not plausible: you don't have to experience something to be harmed by it.

No, I don't think so. All you need is knowledge of the function of the brain. It's crazy to think that he was thinking on this level almost 3000 years ago. He really was right. — Garrett Travers

He just assumes the mind is the brain. Or rather, that the mind is made of soul atoms (he didn't believe our minds are our brains, but rather that they are nevertheless material entities composed of invisible soul atoms - the difference is moot, however).

He infers that sensible things are made of atoms. But the mind is not a sensible thing. We do not see, hear, smell, taste or touch it. Thus he simply assumes - on the basis of no positive evidence - that our minds are also made of atoms and that they cease to exist when the atoms disperse. That's just an assumption.

My point also was about arguments. If you have a deductively valid argument that leads to a highly counter-intuitive conclusion - that is, a conclusion that our reason tells us is false - then that's prima facie evidence that at least one of the premises is false. Unless, that is, denying either premise would be even more contrary to reason than affirming the conclusion. (Sometimes highly counter-intuitive conclusions are correct - or we have reason to believe them to be - but this is when denying them would commit one to affirming something even more counter-intuitive).

This is Epicurus's argument for the harmlessness of death (the strongest of the two he gives):

1. If you do not exist at time t1, then you cannot be harmed at time t1.
2. You do not exist at the time of your death
3. Therefore, you cannot be harmed by your death

The conclusion flies in the face of what our reason tells us: our reason tells us that death is a harm - the gravest of all harms. That's why we use it as a penalty for the most serious of wrongdoing, or at least consider it a candidate punishment. That's the main reason why killing others is wrong - it harms them. That's why suicide is irrational under most circumstances: it is not in your best interests unless you are in unending agony or something. And so on. Our reason really couldn't be more clear on the matter. Thus 3 is about as contrary to reason as the proposition that 2 + 3 = 8.

That means at least one of the premises is false, unless, that is, rejecting either would be even more contrary to reason than embracing the conclusion.

Well, what's more manifest to reason, that death is harmful or that you do not exist when you die? THe former, obviously. THe latter is just an assumption, not something we have any rational support for believing.

Premise 1 is self-evident to reason. It is to mine and it was to Epicurus's and it is to many people's. So, it does have some rational support and we should not reject it lightly. However, it does not have greater self-evidence than the proposition that death is a harm. And so if push comes to shove, one should reject 1 rather than embrace 3. It would be irrational to do otherwise. However, as 1 has some self-evidence and so should not be rejected arbitrarily, and 2 has no self-evidence whatsoever but just expresses an unjustified belief about what happens to us when we die, it is 2 that should be rejected. Someone who insists upon keeping 1 and 2 and drawing Epicurus's conclusion shows only that they are a dogmatist or irrational.

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying.

Janus

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying. — Bartricks

On the assumption that we continue to exist after death, is death still to be considered harmful? Would the answer to that not depend on the conditions we find ourselves in after death?

Deleted User

You're appealing to a different version of the argument, one that is even less plausible.
One version of the argument appeals to the 'experience' condition (that to be harmed, you need to experience the harm in question). The other appeals to the 'existence' condition (that to be harmed, you need to exist at the time). — Bartricks

You do have exist and to experience pain to be in pain. What exactly are you highlighting is the issue.

He just assumes the mind is the brain. Or rather, that the mind is made of soul atoms (he didn't believe our minds are our brains, but rather that they are nevertheless material entities composed of invisible soul atoms - the difference is moot, however). — Bartricks

And happened to be definitively, and exactly correct. How prescient of him. The difference is moot. He had the wherewithal to understand that the mind was the result of a material process that produced, or could experience. I don't see the issue at all.

He infers that sensible things are made of atoms. But the mind is not a sensible thing. — Bartricks

The mind is the brain and the brain is literally made of atoms.

Thus he simply assumes - on the basis of no positive evidence - that our minds are also made of atoms and that they cease to exist when the atoms disperse. That's just an assumption. — Bartricks

No, what he assumed, and correctly so, is that his senses provided him with no evidence of any kind, as they do not do so now for anybody, that anything other than material manifestations were in existence in this realm. He even believed the Gods were entirely separate from this plane of existence.

My point also was about arguments. If you have a deductively valid argument that leads to a highly counter-intuitive conclusion - that is, a conclusion that our reason tells us is false - then that's prima facie evidence that at least one of the premises is false. — Bartricks

Except, not only is the argument valid, I just checked it on truth table, we know that the brain is the source of experience and if not experiencing, then no experience is taking place. There's absolutely no flaw in this argument. Intuition is not reason, reason validates the assertion, intuition vitiates it.

The conclusion flies in the face of what our reason tells us: our reason tells us that death is a harm - the gravest of all harms. — Bartricks

No, it doesn't. Our emotions tells us this because our brains are desinged to pursue homeostasis, death being the opposite of that. One can say death is the worst of all outcomes, but not harm, or pain.

That's the main reason why killing others is wrong - it harms them. — Bartricks

Killing ends a Human Consciousness which is the source of all homeostasis maximizing conceptions and values, that's why it is evil. Not because it harms anyone. I harm myself when I stub my toe, such an action is not evil.

That's why suicide is irrational under most circumstances: it is not in your best interests unless you are in unending agony or something — Bartricks

Same thing as above. Suicide ends consciousness. Consciousness is a computational system used to increase homeostasis, not eradicate it. It's a violation of all reason.

Premise 1 is self-evident to reason. It is to mine and it was to Epicurus's and it is to many people's. So, it does have some rational support and we should not reject it lightly. However, it does not have greater self-evidence than the proposition that death is a harm. — Bartricks

Empirical evidence is more valuable than self-evidence, as it were. Inductively we know experience ends upon death.

So, Epicurus has not shown us that death is harmless, but rather that we do not cease to exist upon dying. — Bartricks

No, I think you are reading the proposition wrong, it is completely valid, and happens to be correct, no kidding. Build you a truth table. I would show you mine, but it won't let me post a pic.

Deleted User

On the assumption that we continue to exist after death, is death still to be considered harmful? — Janus

On that assumption, no, because our life did not end.

Would the answer to that not depend on the conditions we find ourselves in after death? — Janus

That's exactly correct. Meaning, existence isn't the standard of pain, experience is. Thus, Epicurus was correct.

Bartricks

↪Janus

Death is harmful - our reason could not be clearer on the matter.
Harm requires existence. Thus death does not end us, but makes our existence worse. We're heading into hot water.

Deleted User

Harm requires existence. — Bartricks

If existence presupposes harm, then non-existence (death) is not harmful. Death most certainly is the end of our existence according to all gathered empirical evidence. Should I assume that you're talking some afterlife, religious stuff?

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

You do have exist and to experience pain to be in pain. What exactly are you highlighting is the issue. — Garrett Travers

You don't know your Epicurus.

It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience.

But not all harms are pains. And we can be harmed without experiencing the harm.

So, the 'experience' condition on harm is implausible. The 'existence' condition, by contrast, is highly plausible. It is why there is a debate over the harmfulness of death to this day. The experience condition, by contrast, is almost universally rejected as it is simply exposed to too many counterexamples. Hard, however, to come up with a counterexample to the existence condition that would not simply beg the question. So, Epicurus's lasting influence on the philosophy of death comes via his existence condition, not his experience condition.

Virtually no-one thinks Epicurus's argument is sound. The debate is over exactly what is wrong with it.

The mind is the brain and the brain is literally made of atoms. — Garrett Travers

Again, you don't know your Epicurus. He did not think the mind was the brain. He thought it was made of atoms. And he thought that brain was made of atoms. But he didn't think the mind was the brain. He thought our entire bodies are suffused with invisible soul atoms.

It's beside the point, however, for his atomism about the mind is simply false and has no support from reason. It's as stupid as thinking that as my spoon is made of metal, I am made of metal.

The rest is just you dogmatically insisting that materialism about everything is true in defiance of what our reason says. If you don't care to listen to Reason when Reason contradicts what you believe then you're fated never to learn that you're wrong. Reason tells us that there is more in existence than the sensible world. Our reason tells us in all manner of ways that the sensible does not exhaust what exists. We ourselves are clearly not sensible things. And moral norms and the norms of Reason more generally are not. And Reason tells us that our deaths will harm us and tells us that our deaths would 'not' harm us if they ceased our existence. So, what's Reason telling us? That we're our sensible bodies or that we're something else entirely? The latter. But you may be like most empiricists and will not accept that empiricism is false until empirical evidence is provided - which, of course, will never happen. (Psst, there's no empirical evidence that empiricism is true either! How could there be, given evidence is made of normative reasons and normative reasons are not empirically detectable?).

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

If existence presupposes harm, then non-existence (death) is not harmful. Death most certainly is the end of our existence according to all gathered empirical evidence. Should I assume that you're talking some afterlife, religious stuff? — Garrett Travers

I did not say 'existence presupposes harm'. I said - following Epicurus - that harm presupposes existence. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1. That does not mean that if you exist, you are harmed. It's the opposite: if you are harmed, you exist.

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.

Death is not the end: listen to reason. It's the beginning of something - of something really bad.

Epicurus assumes that death is the end. That's precisely what his own principle implies is 'not' the case! He's not a good reasoner.

Deleted User

You don't know your Epicurus. — Bartricks

Spare me the insults in favor of arguments. That's the only time I'm going to be polite about it.

It is 'harm' not 'pain'. Yes, pain has to be experienced to be pain, for pain 'is' a kind of experience. — Bartricks

Okay, much clearer. Yes, harm is the injury to existence itself. You're right. Thus, we're going to need to know if that's specifically what he meant. How do we know he didn't mean "harm" in the sense of pain? Especially considering he's been translated from an old, old language.

But not all harms are pains. And we can be harmed without experiencing the harm. — Bartricks

Totally fair.

So, the 'experience' condition on harm is implausible. The 'existence' condition, by contrast, is highly plausible. It is why there is a debate over the harmfulness of death to this day. The experience condition, by contrast, is almost universally rejected as it is simply exposed to too many counterexamples. Hard, however, to come up with a counterexample to the existence condition that would not simply beg the question. So, Epicurus's lasting influence on the philosophy of death comes via his existence condition, not his experience condition. — Bartricks

If Epicurus drew a distinction himself, then you and I are in accord and I regard Epicurus' assertion as clearly, and demonstrably false.

He did not think the mind was the brain. He thought it was made of atoms. And he thought that brain was made of atoms. But he didn't think the mind was the brain. He thought our entire bodies are suffused with invisible soul atoms. — Bartricks

I think you need to revisit his philosophy of mind. What he thought was that the thinking/experiencing element of was an organ located in the chest. If you transfer the ideas over 1 to 1, they're the same. He made no distinction between the mind, and the organ that was responsible for producing experience. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3f

Again, we're talking about a philosopher from almost 3 millennia ago, let's keep that in mind.

It's beside the point, however, for his atomism about the mind is simply false and has no support from reason. It's as stupid as thinking that as my spoon is made of metal, I am made of metal. — Bartricks

His Atomism drew distinctions between atomic roles, so it isn't that stupid. He actually was correct in his final assessment of what produces the mind (an organ) and the function of the atoms that comprised it. Of course, this is far from the complexity that we now understand characterizes the brain, but the accuracy of such an old inquiry is utterly brilliant.

The rest is just you dogmatically insisting that materialism about everything is true in defiance of what our reason says. If you don't care to listen to Reason when Reason contradicts what you believe then you're fated never to learn that you're wrong. — Bartricks

What have you presented that is accurately characterized by "reason?" What you said was reason has no definition, and flies in the face of modern neuroscience and long-held logical validity, which I literally checked myself via truth-table to investigate. This is moving into the kind of insults that are going to end me being polite. I'm going to need you to clarify the above assertion if I am to continue taking you seriously.

Deleted User

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks

Yes, this is valid. But, is it true. To determine that we need to define words. Is this your usage of harm:

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

If so, then death is the definition of harm in its final form individually.

However, that does not mean that this is the manner in which Epicurus meant to relay the assertion. We need to know if there is a distinction. If no distinction, then he's right if there was one, and wrong if there wasn't.

Death is not the end: listen to reason. It's the beginning of something - of something really bad. — Bartricks

I don't know what this means. Death is not the end of... what? And, how do you know?

Epicurus assumes that death is the end. That's precisely what his own principle implies is 'not' the case! He's not a good reasoner. — Bartricks

No, his own principle may imply that if there was a clear distinction between harm and pain, and he meant harm anyway. If he meant pain, which is very plausible, then he's correct.

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

Spare me the insults in favor of arguments. That's the only time I'm going to be polite about it. — Garrett Travers

Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions.

How do we know he didn't mean "harm" in the sense of pain? Especially considering he's been translated from an old, old language. — Garrett Travers

He may have done, but then his argument would be even weaker than it is.

The experience condition on harm is not very plausible. Why? It's exposed to loads of counterexamples and it is only plausible when harm is taken to be synonymous with pain. But the idea that all harms are pains is implausible. So no matter how you cut it, it is implausible.

The existence condition on harm is, by contrast, very plausible. Our reason represents it to be true - mine does and clearly Epicurus's does too and so too does the reason of countless others, for otherwise we would not still be debating Epicurus's argument - and it is not exposed to counterexamples.

If Epicurus drew a distinction himself, then you and I are in accord and I regard Epicurus' assertion as clearly, and demonstrably false. — Garrett Travers

He didn't explicitly draw it, rather two distinct lines of argument can be discerned in his writings on death, one that assumes the experience condition and one that assumes the existence condition.

I think you need to revisit his philosophy of mind. What he thought was that the thinking/experiencing element of was an organ located in the chest. If you transfer the ideas over 1 to 1, they're the same. He made no distinction between the mind, and the organ that was responsible for producing experience. https://iep.utm.edu/epicur/#SH3f — Garrett Travers

If that's true, it is nevertheless beside the point for what's wrong about his philosophy of mind is not where he locates the mind in the sensible body, but his assumption that the mind is a sensible body. It's just an assumption. There's no evidence the mind is a sensible body - all the evidence is the other way. The reasoning, then as now, is just that 'sensible things are made of sensible things.....therefore the mind is too'. Or, more cautiously 'as sensible things are made of yet smaller sensible things, let's have as our working hypothesis that the mind is too', only at some point it ceases to be a working hypothesis and instead becomes an article of faith.

Again, we're talking about a philosopher from almost 3 millennia ago, let's keep that in mind. — Garrett Travers

I don't see the relevance. Materialism about the mind was just an assumption back then, and it is just an assumption now. There's no evidence the mind is material and plenty that it isn't. And Epicurus himself has given us some of that evidence, albeit unwittingly. For he has shown us that death would not be harmful if it ceased our existence. Thus as it clearly is harmful, it does not cease our existence. Yet it does mark the end of body's functioning. Thus, we - the minds who are harmed by dying - are not our sensible bodies.

What have you presented that is accurately characterized by "reason?" What you said was reason has no definition, and flies in the face of modern neuroscience and long-held logical validity, which I literally checked myself via truth-table to investigate. — Garrett Travers

I don't know what you mean here. I think you have faith in materialism and thus take any argument that implies materialism is false to be unsound on that basis alone.

Bartricks

And then you just assert that death ends our existence. Er, no it doesn't. Look:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths.
— Bartricks

Yes, this is valid. But, is it true. — Garrett Travers

It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it seems self-evidently true (that which seems self-evidently true can, of course, be false, but an argument showing that its truth would conflict with even more apparently self-evidently true truths would be needed).

And 2 is manifest to reason, is it not? The conclusion follows. It follows, in other words, from two premises whose truth seems beyond reasonable doubt.

Is this your usage of harm:

physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

If so, then death is the definition of harm in its final form individually. — Garrett Travers

No, I have no definition of harm. Most harm - not all by any means, but most - involves some kind of suffering. And so my working hypothesis is that our deaths alter our condition such that we are exposed to far, far greater risks of suffering after it than before. That's just a working hypothesis, however. It may be that the cessation of the functioning of our bodies results in us suffering from locked-in syndrome. That is, we are conscious, but lack sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. And are thus tormented in that way. This is just guesswork however. That our deaths harm us is, I think, beyond doubt; what form that harm takes is a matter of speculation.

I don't know what this means. Death is not the end of... what? And, how do you know? — Garrett Travers

Death is not the end of our existence. And I know because I listen to reason. Here, once more, is how I know:

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks

Deleted User

Seems you do not know your insults either - that's not an insult, but just an observation: you kept conflating the experience and existence conditions. — Bartricks

I wasn't asking. I kept conflating, and you kept asserting no distinction was made by Epicurus, which is elemental.

but then his argument would be even weaker than it is. — Bartricks

No, it would be precisely correct and in accord with modern neuroscience.

The experience condition on harm is not very plausible — Bartricks

I know, that's why the distinction between harm and pain needs to be made by the person who didn't speak our language.

It's exposed to loads of counterexamples and it is only plausible when harm is taken to be synonymous with pain. — Bartricks

What are these counter examples?

The existence condition on harm is, by contrast, very plausible. Our reason represents it to be true - mine does and clearly Epicurus's does too and so too does the reason of countless others, for otherwise we would not still be debating Epicurus's argument - and it is not exposed to counterexamples. — Bartricks

I have no idea what this means. None of it.

He didn't explicitly draw it, rather two distinct lines of argument can be discerned in his writings on death, one that assumes the experience condition and one that assumes the existence condition. — Bartricks

Then he's right if he meant pain, and wrong if he meant harm in modern english. Simple as that.

If that's true, it is nevertheless beside the point for what's wrong about his philosophy of mind is not where he locates the mind in the sensible body, but his assumption that the mind is a sensible body. It's just an assumption. There's no evidence the mind is a sensible body - all the evidence is the other way. The reasoning, then as now, is just that 'sensible things are made of sensible things.....therefore the mind is too'. Or, more cautiously 'as sensible things are made of yet smaller sensible things, let's have as our working hypothesis that the mind is too', only at some point it ceases to be a working hypothesis and instead becomes an article of faith. — Bartricks

No, man. He means sensible in the sense that it is of material nature, not otherworldy. He meant the mind is the result of an organ.

I don't see the relevance. Materialism about the mind was just an assumption back then, and it is just an assumption now. — Bartricks

No, it is an understood fact. The brain is responsible for all of our individual experiences and is comprised of white and gray matter. Where are you drawing this conclusion from?

There's no evidence the mind is material and plenty that it isn't — Bartricks

Um, this is made up. There is ONLY evidence that the mind is the result of the brain functioning. And, as it happens, there isn't a single shred of evidence, not anywhere in the world, that it isn't. Here is a bunch of current articles from the relavent field:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/

I challenge you to find me even an iota of evidence that the mind isn't a meterial production. Any evidence at all will do.

Yet it does mark the end of body's functioning. Thus, we - the minds who are harmed by dying - are not our sensible bodies. — Bartricks

I don't know what this means, either. The body produces the mind. The body dies, the mind is gone. This is the definition of harm, but again, we have to establish that such a distinction was drawn by Epicurus himself.

I don't know what you mean here. I think you have faith in materialism and thus take any argument that implies materialism is false to be unsound on that basis alone. — Bartricks

What I mean is, when you have said "reason," it is in no way clear what you're talking about, as I have relayed to you what is established through science. And no, materialism doesn't require faith. Faith is the reassurance of that which goes unseen. Materialism is what constitutes the entirety of my experience as a human through all five senses, the same is so for everyone else.

Deleted User

It's not just valid. It is sound. If you reject 1, you reject one of Epicurus's principles. And anyway, we would need an argument against 1, given it seems self-evidently true (that which seems self-evidently true can, of course, be false, but an argument showing that its truth would conflict with even more apparently self-evidently true truths would be needed). — Bartricks

Again, I'm willing to reject any untrue assertion from Epicurus, but as it stands, it still is not clear if he meant harm the way modern english means it, or pain the way modern english means it.

And 2 is manifest to reason, is it not? — Bartricks

If we're talking about harm in the modern english usage, no question. I've already stated as much.

No, I have no definition of harm. Most harm - not all by any means, but most - involves some kind of suffering. And so my working hypothesis is that our deaths alter our condition such that we are exposed to far, far greater risks of suffering after it than before. — Bartricks

Except suffering is a term that describes numerous structures of the brain operating in response to stimuli that the brain has been evolved to detect, assess, integrate, and inform future behavior. Harm may induce suffering, but suffering is a neuronal operation. Meaning, this is not something that is consistent with science.

It may be that the cessation of the functioning of our bodies results in us suffering from locked-in syndrome. That is, we are conscious, but lack sight, smell, taste, hearing and touch. And are thus tormented in that way. This is just guesswork however. That our deaths harm us is, I think, beyond doubt; what form that harm takes is a matter of speculation. — Bartricks

Could be we enter in to Thor's harem and sleep with Mohammad's 72 virgins, right after kicking it on Yahweh's supra-celestial golf course in Elysium. But, evidence, man.

Death is not the end of our existence. And I know because I listen to reason. Here, once more, is how I know: — Bartricks

And, what do you mean by reason?

1. If our deaths harm us, then we must exist at the time of our deaths
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore, we must exist at the time of our deaths. — Bartricks

A valid argument. But, valid does not imply correct. If harm means injure, then yes, we're extant when being killed. Existence at death means conscious beyond death, that isn't reasonable, as the brain is what produces consciousness, and the brains lack of function is what defines death. You see?

Bartricks

↪Garrett Travers

I wasn't asking. I kept conflating, and you kept asserting no distinction was made by Epicurus, which is elemental. — Garrett Travers

He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence condition.

No, it would be precisely correct and in accord with modern neuroscience. — Garrett Travers

Er, what? The experience condition is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But i imagine that this is going to be your response to all the arguments i make. Oh, but, but, but, science!! Your argument is wrong, because science. Even though science isn't philosophy and I don't really know what I am talking about.....science! Science has shown us that the mind is the brain. I don't know how. And I don't even realize that science isn't investigating what the mind is, as that's a topic in metaphysics, not phsyics or biology, but science. i have read popular books in which scientists with no expertise in philosophy make philosophical pronouncements, and on this basis 'science' refutes you, Dr Bartricks. Science!!!

Any evidence at all will do. — Garrett Travers

By 'evidence' I mean 'science!' I don't really understand what philosophy is or how there could be anything more to reality than what science reveals, because I think that if you spend your entire life looking in a sock drawer, then everything must be a sock. And that which isn't a sock, doesn't really exist. Science! Is that an argument Dr Bartricks? Well, that's not evidence unless science. Even though I don't know what science is and science has to appeal to reason and you're appealing to reason, nevertheless, 'science!' Scientists know what's what and philosophy is a big waste of time except insofar as I can locate philosophers from the past who said things that sound vaguely like things scientists say today. Wooohooo, go Epicurus. No matter that your arguments are rubbish, you believed in atoms and believed that everything is made of atoms, even though loads of things obviously aren't and atoms themselves would need to be made of something, but let's leave that to scientists. Science!!

I don't know what this means, either. — Garrett Travers

Yes, I am sure you don't. This isn't going well is it? Would it help if you imagined I'm a scientist? I think you must be one of those people that those deodorant and facial cream adverts are designed for - you know, the ones that show little red or white orbs travelling through our skin. "Oo, them's atoms - I want atom deodorant as it is used by science and I want to smell of science. This must be good deodorant - look at the atoms! I want some. i want to smell of science and atoms".

A valid argument. But, valid does not imply correct. — Garrett Travers

Yes, but it does mean that if its premises are true, then so too is its conclusion. And its premises are true.

You see? — Garrett Travers

I see something, certainly. Maybe we should move onto the Epicurean paradox and you can show me how science has shown God doesn't exist.

Deleted User

He made two distinct arguments for the harmlessness of death, as you should know. One appeals to the experience condition, the other to the existence condition. — Bartricks

Which implies a distinction between pain and harm, then?

But i imagine that this is going to be your response to all the arguments i make. Oh, but, but, but, science — Bartricks

Without question. If your conclusions are not predicated upon inductive validity, then they aren't conclusions, they're whim.

Your argument is wrong, because science. — Bartricks

No, it isn't supported because of the lack of science. There's a difference.

And I don't even realize that science isn't investigating what the mind is, as that's a topic in metaphysics, not phsyics or biology, but science. — Bartricks

No, not true. As in, so very not true, and has already been demonstrated for you. I left you numerous research articles.

i have read popular books in which scientists with no expertise in philosophy make philosophical pronouncements, and on this basis 'science' refutes you, Dr Bartricks. Science!!! — Bartricks

Is this supposed to be an honest engagement? Beacuse, I already said to keep your fuckin arguments to yourself, it seems you didn't get the point. Let me be more clear: If you stand to deny a vast body of scientific data, then you are a god damn quack and you need to go somewhere that is accepting of quacks and holy-fools. Now, keep your god damn insults to yourself going forward.

Yes, I am sure you don't. This isn't going well is it? Would it help if you imagined I'm a scientist? I think you must be one of those people that those deodorant and facial cream adverts are designed for - you know, the ones that show little red or white orbs travelling through our skin. "Oo, them's atoms - I want atom deodorant as it is used by science and I want to smell of science. This must be good deodorant - look at the atoms! I want some. i want to smell of science and atoms". — Bartricks

What an embarrassing, fucking tantrum.

Yes, but it does mean that if its premises are true, then so too is its conclusion. And its premises are true. — Bartricks

1. If one disregards scientific verification, then one is an anti-scientific dipshit
2. Bartricks disregarded scientific verification
3. Bartricks is an anti-scientific dipshit

That's a nice valid argument with true premises.

I see something, certainly. Maybe we should move onto the Epicurean paradox and you can show me how science has shown God doesn't exist. — Bartricks

That which does not exist leaves no evidence behind to analyze except the absence of evidence itself. I'll no longer be entertaining your insults and nonsense. Please fuck off.

Epicurus is the Single Most Influential Philosopher of all Time

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions