The professor has left a good impression upon me as well... Looking forward to reading more of his input. Wishing I would have paid closer attention to the due dates...

:joke:

Looking forward to reading more of his input. Wishing I would have paid closer attention to the due dates... — creativesoul

Yes, the fact that there are 5 distinct and diverse discussions. Who knows, it could result in an avalanche of thought-provoking stuff - and all done carefully and with a civil tongue.

As to due dates, there weren't any clear cut dates set out at the start.
What difference do you think that would have made to you, or others ?
Would you have written out a question in the format of an OP ?
What issues would it have covered ?

We can all still comment in the main Introduction thread, as far as I am aware.
( Perhaps @Baden can confirm ? )
Therefore, making it even more of a collaborative communication :cool:
Or a total mish-mash :wink:

Because the site permissions are defined by category, they don't allow us to separate the intro discussion from the OP question discussions (which we had to keep exclusively for the questioners and for Prof. Pigliucci), so you can't comment in the main introduction thread anymore. But you can certainly start other discussions that comment on the issues in those threads (they just have to be in a different category).

you can't comment in the main introduction thread anymore. But you can certainly start other discussions that comment on the issues in those threads (they just have to be in a different category). — Baden

Oh. OK. So, will that be organised by the mods, or whoever, as @fdrake suggested earlier:
'I think there will be separate forum wide threads for each discussion with the guest.'

That just means whoever wants to start a discussion on that can do so somewhere else in the forum.

Understood, thanks for clearing that up.

:up:

'The Art of Living - The Stoics on the Nature and Function of Philosophy' - by John Sellars.
From the back cover:
'Sellars argues that the conception of philosophy as an 'art of living', inaugurated by Socrates and developed by the Stoics, has persisted since antiquity and remains a living alternative to modern attempts to assimilate philosophy to the natural sciences. It also enables us to rethink the relationship between an individual's philosophy and their biography.'

Now, I'm not exactly sure about any 'attempts to assimilate philosophy to the natural sciences'.
However, it made me wonder about what any 'Science of Living' might entail from a Stoic point of view.

In my search, I found this enlightening article by @MPigliucci which starts:

Stoicism is a philosophy of life that has been around for 23 centuries, and in the past several years has seen a resurgence of interest throughout the world.[1] Like any philosophy of life (or, for that matter, religion), it has two fundamental components: a metaphysics (i.e., an account of how the world works); and an ethics (i.e., an account of how we should behave in the world).[2] — Massimo Pigliucci

So, what is the Stoic 'account of how the world works'. For that you have to read on.
It is a clear and critical discussion about contemporary science, the Cosmos, panpsychism, the Gods...

https://thesideview.co/articles/the-stoic-god-is-untenable-in-the-light-of-modern-science/

Cool! :cool:

@bert1
I noticed your post in the Guest Speaker: Introduction to Massimo Pigliucci thread:

I like to ask him about his critique of panpsychism. I'll figure out a question in the next few days.
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/on-panpsychism/ — bert1

It would be interesting to hear what your question(s) would have been.

Yes, pretty much :cool:
Any part cooler for you than any other ?

I enjoyed the inclusion of 10 quotes from the Meditations re the issue of metaphysics.
( not sure what translation/edition @MPigliucci uses but it's different to mine )
It highlights the flexibility of thought amongst the ancient Stoics:

These quotes most certainly do not establish that Marcus was agnostic. We can tell that he wasn’t from other bits of the Meditations (e.g., I.17 and II.11). But they do establish beyond reasonable doubt that the ancient Stoics themselves were fine with the possibility that they got their metaphysics wrong, and still saw no reason to reject their ethics.[8] — Massimo Pigliucci

...each made art about social and political issues of great importance and urgency. “The politics we deal with differ greatly, and for us it would feel problematic if they were pitted against each other, with the implication that one was more important, significant or more worthy of attention than the others.

“At this time of political crisis in Britain and much of the world, when there is already so much that divides and isolates people and communities, we feel strongly motivated to use the occasion of the prize to make a collective statement in the name of commonality, multiplicity and solidarity – in art as in society.” — Guardian

I think we are coming to the realization that
'Together we stand. Apart we fall.'
The survival of our civilization now depends on how capable we are of cooperation to head off the negative forces of climate change and migration.

I think we are coming to the realization that
'Together we stand. Apart we fall.'
The survival of our civilization now depends on how capable we are of cooperation to head off the negative forces of climate change and migration. — ovdtogt

Therein lies the nub of it. How 'capable' are we, as humans ?

From @MPigliucci's article:
.

..since we are capable of thinking generally and abstractly we realize that there is no difference between ourselves, our closest family and friends, and human beings who happen to live on the other side of the planet. We therefore “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others, in what the 2nd century Stoic Hierocles described as “contracting” circles of ethical concern: — Massimo Pigliucci

Any thoughts on these Stoic 'circles of ethical concern' ?
How do they compare or conflict with other philosophical or socio-political views of life ?

We therefore “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others, in what the 2nd century Stoic Hierocles described as “contracting” circles of ethical concern: — Massimo Pigliucci

Sorry, but if we “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others" aren't we expanding our circles of concern?
And isn't that the problem we are facing at the moment in regard to poverty and deprivation and environmental degradation? Instead of expanding our oikeiosis we seem to be contracting it.

And as far as I can see the

conflict with other philosophical or socio-political views of life — Amity

would be purely selfish ones in the order of 'the strongest will survive' .
That has served our purposes quite well until now as every civilization bit the dust another was willing and able to take over.
To that extent I think we have arrived at the end of History. No other great civilization is going to 'take over' (China) when our last (The USA) falls. Because when it falls it seems to be determined to take the rest of the world down with it. Our civilization will not survive another 'great' war. We will return to the dark ages and not come out for quite some time.

Sorry, but if we “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others" aren't we expanding our circles of concern?
And isn't that the problem we are facing at the moment in regard to poverty and deprivation and environmental degradation? Instead of expanding our oikeiosis we seem to be contracting it. — ovdtogt

Yes. I have difficulty understanding this concept as well.
Did you watch the Athens TED video ? Linked to here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7089/discuss-philosophy-with-professor-massimo-pigliucci/p1

At about 11 mins in, Massimo talks about role ethics.
There's a transcript here:
https://singjupost.com/stoicism-as-a-philosophy-for-an-ordinary-life-massimo-pigliucci-transcript/

...These three sets of roles are related in the following way: your basic role as a human being trumps everything else. Everything you do, you should ask yourself first: Is this good for humanity? If it isn’t, don’t do it. It’s a simple test. You will end up doing much less, by the way, if you follow this, as we saved you energy. — Massimo Pigliucci

I don't think this is a realistic or pragmatic way of thinking.
Yes, we must think of the environment, humanity etc.
However, before anyone can even begin to think along these lines, don't they first have to look to themselves ?
Know Thyself.

Everything you do, you should ask yourself first: Is this good for humanity? If it isn’t, don’t do it. It’s a simple test. — Massimo Pigliucci

My 3 ethics, which work like a 3 legged chair.
1 is it good for me?
2 is it not bad for humanity?
3 is it not bad for the environment?

However I can never live completely according to my own ethics. I will remain a sinner to some extent.
I think Buddhism tries to show us the way.

For anyone joining in:
Just want to clarify the words quoted are not mine but Massimo's.
Edit: thanks @ovdtogt for editing :smile:

1 is it good for me? — ovdtogt

And how do you know what is 'good' for you ?

1 is it good for me?
— ovdtogt

And how do you know what is 'good' for you ? — Amity

Having started off as a truly miserable 'git' in life I am now reasonably comfortable and content with my existence. For me that is 'proof' that the 'choices' I have made were 'good' for me.
It only becomes apparent if you have made the 'correct' choice, after you experience the consequences of your choice. But after a while you become aware how certain choices will effect you before you even take them. You become more 'discerning'.

https://singjupost.com/stoicism-as-a-philosophy-for-an-ordinary-life-massimo-pigliucci-transcript/

I think the thrust of his argument can be basically summarize as rational vs irrational fear. To fear that which is beyond our control is irrational and self-defeating. We should concentrate only on what is within our control. These are the only fears we should be concerned about.
Having lunch, not dying.

Sorry, but if we “appropriate” (oikeiosis) the concerns of others" aren't we expanding our circles of concern?
And isn't that the problem we are facing at the moment in regard to poverty and deprivation and environmental degradation? Instead of expanding our oikeiosis we seem to be contracting it.
— ovdtogt

Yes. I have difficulty understanding this concept as well. — Amity

OK, I think I better understand the concept of 'Okeiosis' and the 'contraction of circles' having read this:

In Hierocles' other ethical work, On Appropriate acts (of which only fragments survive), he outlined a theory of duty based on concentric circles.

Beginning with the self and then our immediate family, Hierocles outlined how humans can extend their oikeiôsis towards other human beings in widening circles, such as our ethnos and eventually the entire human race. The distance from the center acts as a standard by which we may measure the strength of our ties and therefore our duties towards other people.[9] 

Hierocles argued that there was an ethical need for a "contraction of circles", to reduce the distance between the circles as much as possible and therefore increase our familiarization with all of mankind (while still retaining the strongest affinity within our immediate circle).
— Wiki

Hierocles argued that there was an ethical need for a "contraction of circles", to reduce the distance between the circles as much as possible and therefore increase our familiarization with all of mankind — Wiki

I googled it.
The idea of oikeiosis is, roughly, that one should work to collapse distinctions between one's family members, one's larger circle of friends, the larger circle of fellow Vermonters/New Englanders, the larger circle of US Americans, the larger circle of Westerners, the larger circle of the world, and ultimately, the largest circle of all intelligent beings.

Collapse is used in the context of 'discriminate'. Don't look for the differences between the various cultures but for the similarities will have a positive impact on your outlook in life.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/stoicism/v-1/sections/oikeiosis

Oikeiōsis is an affinity founded on the shared rationality of the entire human race. The doctrine thus helped to foster Stoic cosmopolitanism and other widely admired humanitarian stances (see §18). Seneca (§1), for example, reminded his readers of their moral obligations even to their slaves.

Conversely, however, the oikeiōsis doctrine also encouraged a hardening of attitudes to non-rational animals, with which humans were judged to stand in no moral relation at all. — Routledge

[ my bolds ]
This can't be right :chin:
The ancients must have cared for their animals. Marcus wouldn't be Marcus without his horse !
http://capitolini.info/scu03247/?lang=en

Yes, I noticed the googled Vermont/American excerpt too.
NB - I think you forgot to use the quote function.

Pigliucci's article is a poor one IMO. I would probably have asked him about a premise to a different argument for panpsychism (which he doesn't address in the article). The assumption is that consciousness does not admit of degree, is not a vague concept. I would ask something along the lines of 'Does the concept of phenomenal consciousness admit of degree? Can a being be in a state in which it is indeterminate as to whether it is conscious or not (compare baldness)?'

To address some of what he says in the article:

panpsychism seems to me both entirely unhelpful and a weird throwback to the (not so good) old times of vitalism in biology. — Pigliucci

No modern panpsychist I'm aware of is motivated by a liking of vitalism.

Nagel, therefore, saw panpsychism as possibly “the last man standing” on the issue, winning by default, though it isn’t clear why what is essentially an argument from ignorance (science at the moment hasn’t the foggiest about how consciousness emerges when matters organizes in certain ways, therefore science will never know) should carry any weight whatsoever. — Pigliucci

Winning by default is not the same thing as an argument from ignorance.

Either A B or C.
Not A
Not B
Therefore C

Where there is no consensus, it is perfectly rational to settle on the least problematic theory, whatever that happens to be. As Churchill said, panpsychism is the worst theory of consciousness apart from all the others.

Does that mean that the iPad on which I’m typing this is (partially) conscious? What about the coffee that I just drank as part of my morning intake of caffeine? What about every single atom of air in my office? Every electron? Every string (if they exist)? — Pigliucci

These are good questions from Pigliucci.

Okay, then, let us consider the “genetic argument” first. The “ex nihilo, nihil fit” bit is so bad that it is usually not taken seriously these days outside of theological circles (yes, it is a standard creationist argument!). If we did, then we would not only have no hope of any scientific explanation for consciousness, but also for life (which did come from non-life), for the universe (which did come from non-universe or pre-universe), and indeed for the very laws of nature (where did they come from anyway?). — Pigliucci

I share Pigliucci's view here of the inadequacy (as he quotes it) of this argument. However just pointing out that emergence happens in general is not enough to show that consciousness specifically can emerge from brain function. Every case of putative emergence must be judged on its own merits, and there are reasons why the emergence of consciousness is particularly problematic.

Surely. I’m not positive if my physicist friends would agree that physics is the study of structural form but not content — whatever those two terms actually mean in this context. But if so, then this is simply an argument for the incompleteness, as a science, of fundamental physics. Which, of course, is why we have a number of other sciences that study “content,” chiefly — in the case of consciousness — biology. — Pigliucci

I don't think he has grasped Eddington and Russell's ideas here, but I'm not totally sure I have either, so I'll just move on.

Consciousness, so far as we know, is an evolved property of certain kinds of animal life forms equipped with a sufficiently complex neural machinery. There is neither evidence nor any reason whatsoever to believe that plants or bacteria are conscious, let alone rocks, individual molecules of water, or atoms. — Pigliucci

This is just philosophical ignorance, unfortunately.

Moreover, since at the very bottom matter dops not seem to be made of discrete units (there are no “particles,” only wave functions, possibly just one wave function characterizing the entire universe), it simply isn’t clear what it means to say that consciousness is everywhere. Is it a property of the quantum wave function? How? Can we carry out an experiment to test this idea? — Pigliucci

These are good questions to ask the panpsychist.

I am left with just one question: why would anyone take any of this seriously at all? — Pigliucci

Because there are reasons Pigliucci has not engaged with.

I get it, panpsychism allows us to feel at one with nature because consciousness is everywhere, and that will make us better shepherds of nature itself. — Pigliucci

This observation is philosophically irrelevant, even if true (which it isn't - it's perfectly possible to be a panpsychist and not care one whit for vegetable and mineral welfare.)

I got news: Nature is mind bogglingly bigger than humanity, and it will be here for eons after humanity will be gone. — Pigliucci

Who is he talking to? Who doesn't know this?

Pigliucci has made a whole lot of assumptions about panpsychists ('New Agers') rather than engaging with panpsychism as a philosophy.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Just a reminder of the Massimo Pigliucci article to which you are referring:
https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/on-panpsychism/

You have raised good points for a discussion on panpsychism; it could even be the basis for a TPF article or an essay :cool:

I don't have much knowledge about panpsychism or how it would affect my way of life if I did.
I was concerned that you might be misrepresenting Massimo Pigliucci with your:

Pigliucci has made a whole lot of assumptions about panpsychists ('New Agers') rather than engaging with panpsychism as a philosophy. — bert1

You are not alone in raising objections to his view. No great surprise there !
However, even if he makes assumptions about panpsychists and is dismissive, it isn't the case that Massimo doesn't engage with panpsychism as a philosophy.

I found this:
https://footnotes2plato.com/2019/07/28/panpsychism-a-brief-reply-to-massimo-pigliucci/

Panpsychism is very much like a religious belief - ie. Not based on anything remotely substantial.

Cumulative ‘bits’ of ‘something’ making consciousness is an idea ... not much more. I’m sure there are plenty of nice avenues to explore, but to take it seriously as a means of explaining consciousness is a stretch.

Panpsychism is very much like a religious belief — I like sushi

What I am more interested in are the implications of holding such beliefs and how they might compare with Stoicism as an 'Art of Living'. Philosophy as a way of life.

I’m not really interested in either much. I’m just open to seeing if some can ignite interest in me.

Stoicism only really seems to fit best for those at extreme ends. For the ‘average’ human I don’t think it’s of much use except from time to time. Like everything it’s a useful scheme in some circumstances and depending on individual characteristics.

Hi sushi,

First off, thanks for your discussion with Massimo Pigliucci, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7176/limitations-of-science-and-the-use-of-philosophy

I am not at all familiar with your chosen topic, so had difficulty following the discussion.
However, I probably would have questions - and I would be surprised if others didn't have something to contribute.

It seems that it is up to forum members to start a parallel thread - this doesn't seem to be happening.

Because the site permissions are defined by category, they don't allow us to separate the intro discussion from the OP question discussions (which we had to keep exclusively for the questioners and for Prof. Pigliucci), so you can't comment in the main introduction thread anymore. But you can certainly start other discussions that comment on the issues in those threads (they just have to be in a different category). — Baden

That just means whoever wants to start a discussion on that can do so somewhere else in the forum. — Baden

I wonder if we are all waiting for Massimo to complete the conversation, or perhaps he is waiting to assess level of interest...

Either way, perhaps it would have been better for any Guest Speaker Questioner, i.e. you, to start the forum-wide thread ? Or a moderator? Admin ?
Thoughts welcome. Here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7166/discussions-about-stuff-with-the-guests

I’m just open to seeing if some can ignite interest in me. — I like sushi

In Stoicism ? How would it fit in with your views re phenomenology?