Santa or Satan?

TheMadFool

I was going through the list of members on the forum and I came across @180 Proof's page.

I found something interesting...

Democritus laughs, Heraclitus cries

I'm assuming, I hope correctly, that these two people (Democritus and Heraclitus) are great philosophers in their own right. By that I mean they've thought things through as well as possible ceteris paribus. I think they were contemporaries and so they shared similar experiences in the Greek world.

What is intriguing is there diametrically opposite worldviews. Every relevant detail is same - culture, religion, logic, etc. Yet one laughs and the other cries.

What could be the reason for this paradox?

Is it that our world is complex enough to allow for many interpretations, even those that contradict each other?

Was one of them wrong?

There's the possibility that both are right and that, for me, gives me the right amount of leeway to live my life as I choose. I can choose to cry or laugh as I please. Depending on one's disposition we could choose between laughter and tears.

That's absolutely amazing.

Could it be that there's a middle ground - stoicism?

So many options I'm confused which one to choose. But that's a personal issue and concerns me. What is of greater importance is what this variety of worldviews point to - that the world is rich in possibilities and no single point of view is correct. It gives us the freedom to choose our own paths in our lives.

Artemis

What could be the reason for this paradox? — TheMadFool

Dude, that's not paradoxical.

apokrisis

↪TheMadFool

Have you read what Heraclitus argued for?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

Cavacava

"Democritus laughs, Heraclitus cries"

“Heraclitus would shed tears whenever he went out in public – Democritus laughed. One saw the whole as a parade of miseries, the other of follies. And so, we should take a lighter view of things and bear them with an easy spirit, for it is more human to laugh at life than to lament it.”

– Seneca, On Tranquility of Mind, 15.2

ArguingWAristotleTiff

180 Proof's page. — TheMadFool

How very ironic as I was just looking at his page yesterday. The poll of music preferences is what brought him to mind. I wonder where he is in the Valley of the Surface of the Sun, as well as on the Internet.

TheMadFool

↪apokrisis

2 in 1. Perfect.

TheMadFool

↪Cavacava

Thanks

TheMadFool

↪ArguingWAristotleTiff

I hope he's alright.

Erik

I never quite understood the interpretation of Heraclitus as the "weeping philosopher."

For example, he praised war as the "father and king of all," he accused the poet who desired an end to all conflict of being a fool, he maintained that (according to God) all things are good and just despite the fact that human beings interpret some things as just and others as unjust, etc.

He was clearly a cynic and a misanthrope, no doubt about that, but it's hard to reconcile thoughts like the above - inspirations for Nietzsche's later unconditional affirmation of existence - with the notion that he lamented the nature of things.

Going off memory and paraphrase here (and maybe even a questionable translation) since I lent his book of fragments out to a friend some time ago and am too lazy to look online for specific quotes.

But carry on...

TheMadFool

Dude, that's not paradoxical. — NKBJ

To Cry and to laugh are contraries I believe

Cuthbert

Democritus was laughing because his atomic theory was intended as a joke and everyone took it seriously. If he had lived another 2000 years or so he would have found out it was true then he'd be laughing on the other side of his face.

Heraclitus was crying because he loved swimming but he could never step into the same river twice.

I hope that clears it up.

ArguingWAristotleTiff

I hope he's alright. — TheMadFool

Me too. Me too.

Artemis

To Cry and to laugh are contraries I believe — TheMadFool

So? One person laughing and the other crying isn't paradoxical.

As Cavacava points out:

One saw the whole as a parade of miseries, the other of follies.

That's just different word views and interpretations of the human condition. It's not paradoxical that two humans would have differing opinions.

The glass can be seen as half full and half empty, because it IS both. That's not a contradiction. The contradiction would be if the glass were completely full and completely empty at the same time. But that's not what's going on here.

TheMadFool

↪NKBJ

You have a point Apokrisis said there's unity in duality.

My point is joy and sorrow are contraries, meaning it's impossible for both states to obtain at the same time. However both could be absent as is the case in indifference.

The paradox is in that both Heraclitus and Democritus were contemporaries and yet had contrary worldviews.

This, to me, means that the world doesn't have that absolute form every philosopher seeks. I think they call it the truth.

The strange thing about the absence of absolute truth is that it's both uplifting and, at the same time, depressing. Uplifting because we have a choice whether we're to be happy, sad or apathetic. Depressing because there is no meaning to life.

Another paradox if I may say so.

TheMadFool

↪Cuthbert

:rofl: yes thanks

TheMadFool

↪Erik

The stoics would probably think both Hercalitus and Democritus were fools. I like that being myself one.:smile:

Artemis

↪TheMadFool

You're misusing the term paradox. It may be an interesting juxtaposition, but it is not paradoxical for two different people two have opposing worldviews. It's not even paradoxical for the same person to experience both sorrow and joy at the same time. The human mind is simply capable of looking at things from various perspectives and containing a myriad of emotions.

Saying two people having opposing worldviews is a paradox or contradictory is like saying having a white shirt and a black shirt is a paradox. Although white and black may be opposites of each other, they are not paradoxical in existence side by side. I could even have a shirt that was partly black and partly white and it would still not be a paradox. Just an aesthetically pleasing visual contrast.

This, to me, means that the world doesn't have that absolute form every philosopher seeks. — TheMadFool

Is it the Truth that the world doesn't have an absolute form, aka, the Truth? THAT claim would indeed entail a contradiction: the truth is there is no truth.... which is just silly. :rofl:

TheMadFool

You're misusing the term paradox. — NKBJ

Ok. What's your definition of a paradox?

Saying two people having opposing worldviews is a paradox or contradictory is like saying having a white shirt and a black shirt is a paradox. Although white and black may be opposites of each other, they are not paradoxical in existence side by side. I could even have a shirt that was partly black and partly white and it would still not be a paradox. Just an aesthetically pleasing visual contrast. — NKBJ

Perhaps you're right. I'm making some assumptions here - the sameness of logic and the sameness of the stuff it's applied to.

For instance, take two artists. They're both given identical canvases and paint. The two paintings needn't be identical. Actually they may be exact opposites - one painting a wedding and the other a funeral.

However, this difference is not logical. It's only a matter of personal preference. Logic doesn't work like that. If logic is applied to the same set of concepts and their defined relationships then the outcome must be identical. If not then we have a paradox.

Artemis

What's your definition of a paradox? — TheMadFool

The definition of a paradox is: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

However, this difference is not logical. It's only a matter of personal preference. Logic doesn't work like that. — TheMadFool

Sure it does. You're simply taking an example from real life that clearly has a huge number of variables and therefore leads to different conclusions. If you were to map it out in logic, it would take a few book-length entries to map out why person A draws x and person B draws y. A and B are different, with different DNA, brain structures, hormonal balances, moods, histories, experiences, etc, etc. You could attempt to raise clones side-by-side in an absolute identical manner and still, all it would take is for one of them to happen to glimpse a butterfly flying by and the other not to see this and they would perhaps make different paintings. Because of that minor difference in their experiences, which would have to be part of your logical proof if you wrote it out, the whole thing would lead to a sound conclusion and not be paradoxical or contradictory at all.

It's neither apparently a contradiction, nor really one at all.

TheMadFool

The definition of a paradox is: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion. — NKBJ

You don't find laughing and crying ''logically unacceptable'' when it happens to two people, here Heraclitus and Democritus, both rational and growing up in the same culture?

If two people came out from after a movie, one crying and the other laughing, you would be surprised right?

If ''yes'' then you get my point. If ''no'' then you must agree that the two opposite reactions can only be a matter of taste.

There's an implicit understanding all humans have about the uniformity of experience. If this weren't true we wouldn't be able to use logic (nothing better so put up with it) and do anything. People make ice cream because it elicits a pleasant experience in the majority. People avoid guns because most people hit by bullets die. This uniformity of experience is absolutely essential for the application of so-called ''rationality''. Heraclitus, by crying and Democritus, by laughing at the exact same thing - life - is violating this uniformity. This is a paradox, logically speaking, but if you're irrational, like me, then you shouldn't be able to see this.

Artemis

↪TheMadFool

You don't find laughing and crying ''logically unacceptable'' when it happens to two people, here Heraclitus and Democritus, both rational and growing up in the same culture? — TheMadFool

No. Also, you're talking in circles. So I'll quote myself to answer that:

A and B are different, with different DNA, brain structures, hormonal balances, moods, histories, experiences, etc, etc. You could attempt to raise clones side-by-side in an absolute identical manner and still, all it would take is for one of them to happen to glimpse a butterfly flying by and the other not to see this and they would perhaps make different paintings. — NKBJ

If two people came out from after a movie, one crying and the other laughing, you would be surprised right? — TheMadFool

Marginally. But that's because movies are made with the intention to cause the audience to react a certain way. The range of interpretations is smaller than in real life. But it still wouldn't be paradoxical, because, again, even small differences in a person's brain or experiences can lead to hugely different interpretations of the same thing. I might laugh at a supposedly sad movie cause it was poorly made, or because I finally realized how trivial the supposed sad stuff was, or because I'm a sadist, or because the final thing to do in the face of despair is laugh, or, or, or.

There's an implicit understanding all humans have about the uniformity of experience. — TheMadFool

It's not totally uniform. Some people don't like ice cream at all, and there are different flavors cause people like different kinds.
Some things are (almost) universal, but not universally uniform. Parental love seems universal across cultures, but how we express it, the importance it takes in our lives, how we react to it in others, and so on are all variable and not uniform in person to person.

Cuthbert

Oscar Wilde on Dickens: "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."

fart

I never quite understood the interpretation of Heraclitus as the "weeping philosopher." — Erik

I bet he glowered, but I also bet he was happy in there.

Santa or Satan?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions