Discuss Philosophy with Professor Massimo Pigliucci

Thank for the PF team (and @Wallows and @Amity) that have arranged this meeting and giving forward material!

Looking forward to this. (Will read the blogs and listen to the +2,5 hrs of interviews.)

Reply to ssu

:up:

Reply to Baden

:up:
Thanks to you and team for all of this. An excellent introduction which covers an almost overwhelming amount of material. There is something there for everybody :smile:

First, thanks to the mod team and Professor Pigliucci for making the decision to come by. From a personal standpoint, I will focus on Stoicism out of my own interest in the field for some years.

===
Now, I don't think there is much doubt, within philosophical circles and if you track Facebook groups, that Stoicism is experiencing a revival in the public domain of discourse.

1. Therefore, why is Stoicism experiencing a revival for people nowadays?

a) Is it due to our way of living that is increasingly demanding our attention and foresight in regard to ensuring a safe and comfortable life of leisure and satisfaction? Perhaps, people are realizing that ensuring a safe and comfortable future, isn't always guaranteed no matter what action or amount of effort they put towards this goal. Therefore, are people deriving satisfaction from the negative visualization practices, that Stoicism propounds towards life itself?

b) Psychologically, what is appealing about Stoicism exactly? Is it its appeal to resilience, and enduring voluntary or too many involuntary discomforts that life may throw at us? Can this be characterized, as a selfish desire to become stronger, and if so, is this a botched understanding of Stoic philosophy?

c) Finally, from a religious standpoint, it seems that Stoicism is becoming lately, dare I say, a type of secular religion of sorts. Would you agree with this characterization, or not?

c.1 contextually an elaboration) Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus are icons to be followed in the minds of many. They are shining examples, of the very role models you talk about in your TED talk in Athens. It is fascinating, and perhaps, exclusive to philosophy in its appeal, that a Roman Emperor and a slave, both talked about the very same thing, the sort of existential disquietude that can plague many found to be alleviated by an appeal to virtue and concern with the good.
===

Just some stuff to think about. I also would love to see a discussion about preferred and dispreferred indifferents, but that may be too much to ask for.

Reply to Baden Great! :up:

Nice, I will definitely ask him some questions about the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, as I don’t see any such demarcation as objective nor as desirable, contrary to what he claims.

Quoting Baden

... propose an OP in the form of a detailed question/inquiry on one aspect of his work that you find interesting.

We will pick a selection of these questions (hopefully within a week or so) and set them up in discussions for Prof. Pigliucci to read and then respond to. You may also ask follow-up questions on receiving a response, which he may engage with.

I am not sure how this is supposed to work :chin:
People will have questions but not necessarily in the form of an OP.

Is the idea to start several discussions ( how many ? ) headed by the chosen OP.
A particular aspect or category - like Stoicism, Science v Philosophy, Philosophy v Religion ?
Then other questions ( sub- categories ) can be put forward as part of the discussion ?

All help gratefully received.

Reply to Amity

We would like everyone who would like to converse with Massimo to write a post here in the form of a question/inquiry into an aspect of his work. This post should be detailed enough to use as an OP. No categories are necessary (although if you want to headline your OP with a category it's fine). We will pick about five of these posts and allow the chosen posters to start their respective discussions with them. Massimo will then be able to read each discussion and reply to the posters in question. The discussions will not be open to everyone to comment on but everyone can view and comment here as they wish. Hope that makes sense.

(So, in the end, there will be about five separate discussions in this space by five different posters which Massimo can respond to, but again only the posters chosen will be able to post in their respective discussions while anyone wishing to comment on them while they're ongoing can post here.)

@Ciceronianus the White, here's your chance to expand or interact with a leading Stoic philosopher. Quite interested in your take on the philosophy of Stoicism.

Reply to Wallows

Yes. :cheer:

Quoting Baden

So, in the end, there will be about five separate discussions in this space by five different posters which Massimo can respond to, but again only the posters chosen will be able to post in their respective discussions while anyone wishing to comment on them while they're ongoing can post here.)

OK, understood.

@unenlightened, I'm sure you have something worth saying also? Please come out of your slumber and share edifying thoughts with us folk.

I’ll have a listen and see if I can pose a decent question. The limits of science would be something of interest to me given my interest in Husserlian phenomenology.

Reply to I like sushi

That would be great. Cheers. :up:

I'd 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/

This sounds like a really great opportunity!

I'll break out my questions here and edit the detail over the next few days until I think I have something that is good enough.

First question; is the Stoic Dichotomy of control, complete? What I mean by this; is it correct to say that we only have control over some aspects and not others? I suppose what I'm noticing is that; while outcomes are for the most part out of our control, our faculties and our choices are some what a contributing factor to outcomes.

Second question; is stoicism compatible with systems theory? I have taken stoicism deep into the heart of my application of pragmatism but I'd be very curious to hear what you think about what you feel are potential shortcomings of stoicism? Is there a scenario you can think of where a stoic approach is problematic? Pros and cons of stoicism?

Third question; a great difficulty my partner is having in applying stoicism to her life is, that due to a traumatic childhood without a father and an abusive mother, she greatly reocognises the need for role models but she doesn't know where to begin in finding a role model. I doubt she is the only one so hers and my question to you on this subject: How should one evaluate potential role models? Maybe you could also share a small list of female Stoics you believe are good role models?

Now for something where you can freely expand; What does it really mean to be temperate? What is the Stoic perspective on Emotion and application of emotion? What are the social and societal duties of a philosopher and an ethicist? What does a good philosopher look like? What do they believe/say/do?

Thank you very much to our moderators for organising this opportunity to speak with such a prestigious mind and thank you Professor Pigliucci for taking the time out of your busy schedule to engage with our community.

Best wishes and warmest Regards

M.A.D.

Reply to Wallows
Well done, Wallows.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Well done, Wallows.

Let's save that for after the event has occurred, heh, to be Stoical about such matters. :halo:

Quoting Wallows

Finally, from a religious standpoint, it seems that Stoicism is becoming lately, dare I say, a type of secular religion of sorts. Would you agree with this characterization, or not?

c.1 contextually an elaboration) Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus are icons to be followed in the minds of many. They are shining examples, of the very role models you talk about in your TED talk in Athens.

Hi Wallows - I don't intend to compete with this excellent set of questions.
However, I'd like to comment on what you've written so far, if that's OK.

I have sympathy with the view that Stoicism can be seen as secular spirituality with religious overtones.
Re: 'How to be a Stoic':
I read in an interview that Massimo talked of Epictetus as 'playing the role of his personal 'daimon'. This reminded me of Socrates' 'daemonion' who kept him on the right track. This seems to be spiritual if not divine in nature.
It would be interesting to ask just how Massimo has his Conversations with Epictetus ? Is it 'spiritual' in that Epictetus is seen as some kind of 'God' - or is it by a close, analytical reading of the Discourses.

There does seem to an evangelical zeal involved. Having said that, perhaps it is warranted so as to balance out the extremism of certain religious beliefs.

I like the idea of life as an ongoing project. Massimo has shown how an individual's life can be changed by conscious reflection ( 'Know Thyself' ) and a bit of serendipity. From being a scientist, going through a midlife crisis, to being a personable, pragmatic, public philosopher of Stoicism.

Re: the Athens TED talk and the role model of Nelson Mandela. I didn't know that he had been inspired by Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. I love that ! He speaks to me too.
I do see philosophy, in particular Stoicism, as a practical way to progress wellbeingness. (Massimo points out the overlap in psychology and psychiatry. Also, the importance of an evidence-based approach. It's all good ).

From the Meditations 5.9:
'Do not give up in disgust or impatience if you do not find action on the right principles consolidated into a habit in all that you do. No: if you have taken a fall, come back again, and be glad if most of your actions are on the right side of humanity.
Do not come back to philosophy as schoolboy to a tutor but rather as a man with opthalmia returns to his sponge and salve...obedience to reason is no great burden, but a source of relief.'

[ My bolds: In other words, you can only do your best ! ]

Finally, this quote:
'I have a habit of reflecting about my feelings and experiences...adjusting what I actually do and what I want to do in a neverending exercise of reflective equilibrium' - Massimo Pigliucci.

How inspirational is that ?
The forthcoming discussions should be fabulous :cool:

Quoting Amity

I read in an interview that Massimo talked of Epictetus as 'playing the role of his personal 'daimon'. This reminded me of Socrates' 'daemonion' who kept him on the right track. This seems to be spiritual if not divine in nature.

Mhm, I didn't want to psychologize the issue, since no authority can be bestowed on such sentiments; but, I did hint at that question in a more broader sense wrt. to what Prof. Pigliucci might think is happening for other people when they become, and as to why they might as well become interested in Stoic philosophy. It's a tough question to answer definitively, and I suppose it can be edited out when the final draft is presented to him.

Quoting Amity

The forthcoming discussions should be fabulous :cool:

Yes... Though, I suppose I shall go and wallow a little now.

Quoting Wallows

Yes... Though, I suppose I shall go and wallow a little now.

All of this requires quite a bit of energy, doesn't it ?
Be good to yourself :sparkle:

Reply to Amity

You know, that is actually a pretty interesting question.

Is Stoicism more taxing on a person than simply assuming that everything goes?

Have at it.

Reply to Wallows Reply to Amity

Hey, can we keep discussions about specific questions in their own threads? (create one if you'd like). I'd prefer that this not be too cluttered so we can easily keep track of questions for Prof. Pigliucci. Thanks.

Reply to StreetlightX

Yes, sorry.

I'd like to revise my prior questionnaire to a more simple and personal feel-good existential question to Prof. Pigliucci to be the following:

• Why Stoicism?
• What about Stoicism appealed to you instead of other schools of philosophical thinking?

I leave it to the moderators to decide what is more interesting and wholesome a question to ask. Though, I feel like this is the right question to ask instead of the tedious ones beforehand.

Jeez, that talk between Krauss, Dennett and the above was pretty dull. At least I have a gist now - but not much of one.

Is there a paper I could read about his views on ‘the nature of science’?

Quoting StreetlightX

Hey, can we keep discussions about specific questions in their own threads? (create one if you'd like). I'd prefer that this not be too cluttered so we can easily keep track of questions for Prof. Pigliucci. Thanks.

Hey, that's fine by me. I was done anyway. I won't be creating a separate thread. Thanks.

(1) One of the more famous images associated with the Stoics is their tripartite division of philosophy into ethics, physics, and logic, each represented by parts of an egg (logic being the egg-shell, ethics being the egg-white, and physics being the yolk). I think it's fair to say that while most popular attention has been paid to the egg-shell of Stoic ethics, a lot less has been given to their account of logic and physics. With physics, I have in mind things like their distinction between bodies and incorporeals (to give just one example), and with logic, their substitution of what they called 'assertibles' in place of Aristotelian 'terms' (to give another example). Do you think that these other elements of the Stoic egg have relevance today, and if so, where they might stand with respect to both contemporary physics and logic?

(2) There's been a noticeable uptick in the popularity of Stoic ethics in recent times, no doubt in part due to your very generous engagements and writings on the topic. However, one common criticism I see of Stoicism, in this regard, is that it just so happens to be very nicely tailored to our present-day socioeconomic conditions in which, thanks to a generalized decline in social mobility and opportunity, encourages people to 'accept their lot in life', turning 'inward' in order to steel themselves against harsh realities, rather than attempt to change those realities. In other words, the critique runs that Stoic ethics is an inherently conservative ethics whose popularity is a response to wider social and political incapacities, and which, in turn, feeds a resistance to sociopolitical change. Would this be a fair charge, and if not, what might a Stoic response to it look like?

Massimo Pigliucci is a strong proponent of the idea that there is a fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience, and that this distinction is desirable. I emphatically disagree. Instead of asking him questions I want to explain why there is no fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience and why forcing such a distinction is not desirable. This is better than asking him why he believes there is such a distinction as he has already explained that in his books, papers and talks (see his website for instance).

While I understand that the invitation is to ask him a detailed question/inquiry, the subject of this thread is also “Discuss Philosophy with Professor Massimo Pigliucci”, and I believe challenging some of his core ideas in a respectable and rational way could lead to an enlightening debate. Philosophy isn’t only about listening, it’s also about challenging.

Among other things I will critically address a paper he published in 2013: “The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan”, that appears in the book Philosophy of Pseudoscience (link to the paper: https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGTDP.pdf)

I have almost finished writing the whole thing, should I post it in this thread or should I create one? It is quite long, it could make for a small paper, it consists of 5 parts:

I. Definition of the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience
II. Historical attempts at a solution and why they failed
III. Pigliucci’s attempt at a solution
IV. Why Pigliucci’s attempt fails too
V. Why there is no fundamental distinction between science and pseudoscience and why forcing a distinction is not desirable

Reply to leo

Questions go in this discussion only, please. And, sure, you can add a critique. But please make it of a reasonable length. Prof. Pigliucci's time is likely to be limited and we want to share it as evenly as we can among posters.

Just to add that we appreciate all the input and effort made here and apologise in advance to anyone who is not chosen. Again, there's a limit to what we can put forward based on our original invitation and if anyone's question doesn't make it through, it shouldn't be taken as a negative judgement on it. We've made the process as open as we can at least.

Reply to leo Reply to Baden If you (Leo) get the ball rolling on a thread with some discussion from various members, we may at the very least get Prof. Pigliucci to take a read if he has time and possibly respond. No promises of course, but I think it'll be cool if there's an already-ongoing discussion that he can chime into if he'd like.

Reply to StreetlightX

Ok, but @leo put that discussion in one of the philosophical categories first, please (if you want to do it that way). We'll keep the guest speaker category clear for now.

Quoting Baden

Just to add that we appreciate all the input and effort made here and apologise in advance to anyone who is not chosen. Again, there's a limit to what we can put forward based on our original invitation and if anyone's question doesn't make it through, it shouldn't be taken as a negative judgement on it.

You have made this as open as you can. However, I think that people will inevitably feel disappointed, especially if they have taken time to prepare a detailed OP. One way to alleviate this might be:

Given that this thread will be open to comments and questions related to the chosen questions, it might be good ( time allowing ) if Massimo would be gracious enough to select and respond to interesting questions/comments here. Just an idea.

Reply to Amity

What we could do is let Massimo know what's been contributed and give him the option of looking further at this thread and Leo's discussion if he chooses to start one. If Massimo does take a look and reply, it would be a nice bonus (though we'd certainly be happy with him just getting involved with the five questions we choose, which is already a significant undertaking).

Quoting Baden

What we could do is let Massimo know what's been contributed

That sounds fair. Thanks again :smile:

Quoting Baden

Questions go in this discussion only, please. And, sure, you can add a critique. But please make it of a reasonable length. Prof. Pigliucci's time is likely to be limited and we want to share it as evenly as we can among posters.

Okay I will create a thread then. It will be long because there are too many things to say, even though I focus on the most important points. If I make it too short the reasoning will be full of holes, I make it as short as possible but I can’t make it shorter than that. If his time is limited he can read only part IV, it directly addresses a paper he wrote, he made quite a few mistakes which make his conclusion unwarranted. Parts I to III are so that everyone can understand the problem, understand what has been tried to solve the problem, and most importantly to understand the last part.

Whether he reads it or not I will probably publish it as a paper, because he and others are wrong about pseudoscience and they have to see why, and if they don’t then at least other people will be able to see why.

Quoting StreetlightX

If you (Leo) get the ball rolling on a thread with some discussion from various members, we may at the very least get Prof. Pigliucci to take a read if he has time and possibly respond. No promises of course, but I think it'll be cool if there's an already-ongoing discussion that he can chime into if he'd like.

Quoting Baden

Ok, but leo put that discussion in one of the philosophical categories first, please (if you want to do it that way). We'll keep the guest speaker category clear for now.

Understood :up:

Quoting leo

he made quite a few mistakes which make his conclusion unwarranted

Oh No! He'll be gutted.

I respectfully submit my question to ask Dr. Prof. Massimo Pigliucci. I hope it's of reasonable length and will be found worthwhile to ask. This question may answer why Epictetus got punched in the nose. I figure the puncher did not fancy getting the control of his motivation away from himself.

"Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom. To thrive for applying these in life is the goal of Stoicism. What if someone is not naturally motivated to thrive for these? Then to make them thrive for these is to control their motivation by altering it; which is equivalent to taking the control of their motivation away from them. This is not to be done by Stoic philosophy, yet Stoic philosophy needs to do the very thing in Stoic schools.

My conclusion is that Stoic philosophy suits beautifully those who are by nature Stoic, but it is not compatible with Stoic philosophy to make those who are not Stoics into Stoics.

Dr. Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, I ask you: how do you reconcile Stoicism, which holds that motivation is in one's own complete control, with Stoic schools, which try to alter the motivation of people? If you say that control can be changed by a person other than the self, without passing ownership of control, by the influence of one person over the other, then we have problems with how we use the word "control"."

I'm very grateful for any time that you spend with my questions, and I hope that you have a fun time interacting with strangers interested in your work on the internet. At the very least, on behalf of my co-questioners, I do hope you find us not too frustratingly uninformed.

Question synopsis

In an ideal world, what take home messages would you like the general public to have from the Extended Synthesis?

Motivating context

It seems to me that the most common intuitions about evolution and the role genetic inheritance play in it are:

(1) An organism's structure follows entirely from its genetic code in a reductive way. Examples; if you "have the gene for running" you can become Usain Bolt. Conversely, "if you have autism, eventually scientists will understand just how this occurs in the genome and be able to treat it".

(2) Individual centric "strong prey on the weak" bastardisations of selection. Examples; far right ideologies of racial supremacy and justifications for suffering in the third world. Appeal to "survival of the fittest" when looking at company success/failure in markets.

If I have read correctly, The Extended Synthesis is a research programme you have championed in evolutionary theory that seeks to update the central tenets of evolutionary research to be more expansive. In particular, as a research programme it seeks to raise awareness of the important roles non-genetic (as in, not regarding gene sequences) heritability, organismal development and a variety of organic units being subject to selection at once play in understanding evolution.

To my understanding, the Extended Synthesis seeks to highlight the central importance of phenotypic plasticity [hide]identical genomes lead to different phenotypes depending on the context[/hide] epigenetic effects [hide](heredity through gene expression rather than genetic code)[/hide], the evolution of evolvability [hide](organisms are selected for their evolutionary adaptability too)[/hide], and multi-level selection [hide](for example simultaneous selection on the cell and organismal level of an organism)[/hide] to our understanding of evolution.

I hope I am not wrong in saying of the first two (phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic effects) that they are examples of ecological and bodily context sensitivity of the operation of a genetic code; that is, organismal development is context specific and this is relevant to how heredity and selection work. And in the latter as selection acting (differentially) on more types of organic units than is usually envisaged, and on more capacities of organic units (like their capacity for evolutionary adaptation), than just genetic information. That is, how evolution itself works is context specific and need not focus solely on changes in the genetic code as the singular causal locus of evolutionary change. Broadly construed, it seems to me the Expanded Synthesis wants to highlight the context sensitivity of the units of evolution and the role the variation in developmental context plays of those units.

It seems to me that these effects play a role of highlighting the contextual or ecological sensitivity of evolutionary mechanisms; not just the ecological sensitivity (niche stuff) of reproductive fitness as is more well known. Moreover, they make reductive explanations based on bastardisations like in (1) or (2) not just specious, they are almost unthinkable from (what I understand as) the perspective of the Expanded Synthesis. This role the Expanded Synthesis could play in demystifying the public understanding of evolution by highlighting the various ways it is context sensitive is what I would like to ask you about.

Well, firstly, I suppose I should ask if you believe that heightened awareness of the Expanded Synthesis would demystify the public understanding of evolution?

Given that, I would like to ask the same question in three ways. What changes would you like widespread knowledge of the content of the Extended Synthesis to have on the public understanding of evolution? What should we garner from it, and how should it inspire what questions we ask and answer using it? What transformation of the understanding of evolution would you like the Expanded Synthesis to bring among the general public?

Follow up question

To what extent do you think great emphasis on the central dogma in biology research, science journalism and teaching has lead to the reductive understandings of evolution and genetics the general public has?

When is the deadline for posing questions?

Reply to I like sushi

We've committed to getting back to Massimo with more details within three more days, and I think we'll have five good questions by then, so that's the provisional deadline, I guess, unless one of the the other mods has a better idea, which they might. The tricky part will be choosing which questions to run with. We haven't finalized that aspect of it yet.

Reply to Baden Okay, I’ll try and figure out a way to word my question that is broad and specific enough in regards to the limits of science.

Thanks

Reply to I like sushi

No worries.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to Baden

Question: how will responses to Pigliucci be moderated? The forum tends to be pretty lenient in terms of anything from sarcasm, snark, up to and including (sometimes vulgar) personal attacks, and while I generally see that as up to the mod's discretion (this being a privately owned, online forum and all), I would hate to see a professional receive some of the same treatment we've all seen regular forum members endure.

Reply to Artemis

It's a more formal context, so moderation will be stricter. But as only chosen posters will be interacting with Massimo, we don't expect a problem.

These are my two attempts. I could probably be more explicit with the first question, but fear it would turn into a mini essay with too many obscure points. I’m assuming it will make enough sense if he’s reasonably familiar with Husserl’s Crisis - if not I doubt it’ll make a whole lot of sense as I’m looking spceifically at Husserl’s view of psychology being consumed by ‘objective’ science and thus embedding its main line of engagement with ‘subjective’ being in a method based around a discipline of reducing ‘subjectivity’ - an obvious ‘bias’ (if it ca be called ‘bias’) as the heart of experimental science.

Question 1 (can refine - see above):

Regarding the limitations of science and Husserlian Phenomenology

As science is orientated around producing experimental data that actively absconds from ‘subjectivity’ what is there for scientific disciplines (such as psychology) to offer in terms of shining a light on ‘subjective’ contents?

This question is based on Husserl’s critique of modern psychology and his attempts to point toward a ‘subjective science’ as opposed to, but NOT in opposition to, the objectivity of science.

And/also, I heard an interview on Philosophy Now where the question of ‘science’ and ‘logic’ was touched on briefly. As Husserlian Phenomenology was concerned with the ‘origin’ of logic how exactly do you relate logic/mathematics to science? Is this essentially the area that defines the ‘limitations’ of what is and isn’t ‘science’?

I was also a little confused by someone stating in that interview (not yourself, yet you seemed to be in some agreement) that some ‘phenomenological’ approach was ‘illusionary’ and ‘silly’. Granted this appears to have been in reference more or less to more ‘literary’ ideas rather than Husserlian Phenomoenlogy, but clarification on this point would be nice.

Note: I view Husserl as making attempts to undercover a rational means of finding a ‘subjective’ measurement of phenomenal items that fail to fall into regular means of ‘measuring’ - meaning as an approach to delineate subjective contexts. As a brief example as a way of distinguishing Mental Movement from Physical Movement. By this I mean when I pick up a chair the environment ‘mentally moves’ around this focus of attention, where physically the ‘movement’ is the chair within the environment, or as another example looking ‘into’ a mirror being differentiated from looking ‘at’ the mirror - the point being the empirical data in both circumstances is identical yet the conscious experiences highlighted are delineated.

OR

Question 2:

Regarding the use of philosophy for science and the application of dichotomies and magnitudes

As you appear to have stated in the discussion with Dennett and Krauss, you believe the use of philosophy to be how to examine questions and sort out what questions are of use and what limits a question may or may not have. In terms of experience what has philosophy to say outside of the Husserlian Phenomenological approach and leaving aside its function as a means of putting worded questions into hierarchies of importance/use? My view here is is that philosophy is generally engaged in demarcating, and selecting, different and vague dichotomies and magnitudes - in linguistics choosing what ‘antonym’ (the ‘gradable’, ‘complimentary pair’, and/or ‘relational pair’) fits and how/if measurements can be made in an accurate/‘universal’ enough manner.

Reply to I like sushi

Cheers for that. Any final efforts, folks? And then we'll get to choosing (and we'll make it fully transparent how we do that).

As a bonus question that is not something that anyone tends to ask anyone in interviews (surprisingly!).

The short version:

What is the most outrageous/unconventional idea/thought you’ve ever had in your field of interest?

The longer version:

What is your most whacky, speculative and/or contentious opinion/view/interest? Basically what ‘out there’ thought do you carry around that you wouldn’t necessarily put reasonable weight behind, but that nevertheless holds a place at the back of your mind?

I guess people don’t ask this one much because people generally don’t like to have themselves associated with an idea/view that is considered ridiculous by their peers.

Quoting I like sushi

I guess people don’t ask this one much because people generally don’t like to have themselves associated with an idea/view that is considered ridiculous by their peers.

Yes well. I think it would be great to have a few miscellaneous,fun questions.
Like, is it true what @Wallows said about Massimo liking ducks, a lot :cool:
Go Wallows ! :up:

Follow-up - if so, do you dialogue or dance with the ducks ? As per Eva Meijer, a Dutch philosopher, novelist, visual artist and singer-songwriter, who talks to Fagan the horse.

What does Stoicism have to say about animals, do they have a soul ? What about their rights ?

While the ancient Greeks saw humans as part of a greater whole with other animals, Christianity and the Enlightenment set people apart from mere beasts. Descartes believed animals had no soul. In recent decades, however, the list of things that “only humans are capable of” has become steadily shorter. Thinking, empathy, expressing emotions, grammar, generalised reciprocity (doing something for someone unknown, or without expectation of a return favour) – science is beginning to show that other animals can do it all. Understanding how animals communicate can unlock these insights.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/13/of-course-animals-speak-eva-meijer-on-how-to-communicate-with-our-fellow-beasts

The issue of communication actually links in to my earlier comments to @Wallows questions.
Re your book 'How to Be a Stoic':

I read in an interview * that Massimo talked of Epictetus as 'playing the role of his personal 'daimon'. This reminded me of Socrates' 'daemonion' who kept him on the right track. This seems to be spiritual if not divine in nature.
It would be interesting to ask just how Massimo has his Conversations with Epictetus ? Is it 'spiritual' in that Epictetus is seen as some kind of 'God' - or is it by a close, analytical reading of the Discourses.

* https://dailystoic.com/massimo-pigliucci-interview/

How does anyone communicate effectively with a dead person via a book ?
Given the different translations/ interpretations, what advice would you give forum participants who might wish to read Epictetus, individually or as a group ?
For example, some have issues with concentration, others wish to speed on before fully understanding a concept...
Do you have to be on a certain wavelength ?

Finally, thanks for sharing your personal exploration of Stoicism: in the way it has changed your life and your hope that it will change others as well.
I particularly enjoy hearing advice about how to treat insults ( quite useful on a philo forum ! ).
Talking of which:
Do you think Greta Thunberg is a Stoic philosopher ?

Not sure if she practises all the spiritual exercises. Or has even read Epictetus...
However, I love how she dealt with Trump's Viciousness.
This was when he belittled her ( after she glared at him and condemned him for inaction on climate change ) with the sarcastic: " She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future...so nice to see !"
Greta fully embraced this by adding it to her Twitter profile which had read "16yr old climate activist with Asperger's".

I'd say that Greta, and all that she progresses, is a shining example of Virtue in Action.
Just as you are :sparkle:
* Ducks quacking in agreement *

Reply to Amity

Easy on the mentions @Amity. I just posted some quasi-philosophical questions. Heh.

Reply to Wallows
You mean like this @Wallows ?
How can I not give you credit for all the inspiration, huh ?
They should join our questions and make us as One :wink:
Wallamity ! Yeah :smile:

Quoting Amity

You mean like rhis Wallows ?
How can I not give you credit for all the inspiration, huh ?
They should join our questions and make us as One :wink:

Yes, I suppose our mental/intellectual profiles are meshing in some sense. Eeeek.

Let's keep this clean and on-topic folks. :)

Reply to Baden
What's wrong with a bit of wallamity? :hearts:

The remarks the Professor makes regarding discipline and order of training in Epictetus are well done.
I wonder how he looks at Marcus Aurelius citing his skills as inheritances of different kinds, encounters and conditions that make a person able to do things.
Or does he consider that discussion as outside of the circle of the "Stoas"?

I said I would make a thread on why there is no fundamental difference between science and pseudoscience (whereas Pigliucci promotes the opposite), and I will, but I'm trying to make it as clear, thorough and short as possible, and personal life is getting in the way so it is taking longer than expected. The OP said the discussions would take place in the beginning of December, hopefully it will be ready by then, if not I will post it anyway once it is done.

I proposed to ask a question which presents a challenge to Dr. Prof. Pigliucci.

My proposal was based solely on his presentation of what Stoicism is. No outside theory or consideration was pulled in. My question concerned the very idea of schools of Stoicism by Stoics being a self-defeating institution.

Nobody else has posted a question so far, unless of course I missed reading that post.

In order that you guys and gals don't have to seek for my earlier post, I repeat my question, heavily paraphrased, here:

1. Stoicism relies on 1.1. Human nature, 1.2. and on the two pillars of Stoicisim, which are 1.2.1. Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom and 1.2.2. being satisfied to control those things which one can, and not be affected by those things which one can't control.

2. Human nature, as such, is static with each human, as it is "the nature" not "the nurtured qualities" of humans.

3. Human nature is diverse, and do not necessarily comprise the values, or actions, or considerations, of justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom for any given individual. Human nature is diverse, and do not necessarily comprise the attitude of being satisfied with controlling those things which one can, and not being affected by those things which one can't control.

4. Teaching Stoicism in Stoic schools is to teach those non-Stoics to live how to live as Stoics. If someone is already is a Stoic, he or she needs no school to learn how to live like a Stoic.

5. Teaching Stoicism to non-Stoics presumes they are either lacking in any one of the following: Justice, temperance, courage and practical wisdom, and/or lacking in attitude of being satisfied with controlling those things which one can, and not being affected by controlling those which one can't control. Let's call the teaching of these as "teaching the Stoic goals".

6. But teaching Stoic goals to those who already don't have Stoic goals requires that their nature be changed.

7. But nature can't be changed, as nature is not an acquired quality, but an innate, inborn quality. Otherwise it would be called "nurtured human qualities" and it would not be called "human nature".

8. Therefore the Stoic schools are a complete waste of time, as their goal is futile; they can't change those who are not Stoics by nature, and there is no reason to teach Stoicism to those who are Stoics.

9. Therefore my question to Dr. Prof. Pigliucci is this: "Dear Dr. Proferssor Pigliucci, in light of the contents of the previous 8 points, how do you reconcile the drive to teach Stoicism when it can't be taught at all to human beings?"

I haven't got any questions for Mr. Pigliucci at this time, but I have some suggestions which may be useful to help facilitate the success of this project. They are as follows.

1. Allow Mr. Pigliucci to choose which questions (members) to address, directly from this thread.
2. Start with one topic, and create a parallel thread to allow other members to discuss the discussion. The parallel thread will help Mr. Pigliucci to get acquainted with the way that other members relate to his ideas, as the parallel discussions develop.
3. Leave this thread open to receive new topic suggestions at any time, and allow Mr. Pigliucci to choose new topics (members) to engage with, at will.

I would like to see a log running interaction, with numerous members joining the discussion with Mr. Pigliucci. Thank you very much for the efforts of all involved in this project.

Quoting god must be atheist

Human nature is diverse, and do not necessarily comprise the attitude of being satisfied with controlling those things which one can, and not being affected by those things which one can't control.

Precisely... hence Stoicism!

This might be taboo to ask a philosopher to criticize another psychologist (philosopher)? But, I am keenly interested in Prof. Pigliucci's take on the purported perversion of Stoicism by mainstream people like Jordan Peterson.

Here's a take to the matter:

https://modernstoicism.com/nope-jordan-peterson-aint-no-stoic-by-massimo-pigliucci/

Reply to Wallows Interesting take. I certainly agree with Peterson’s use of ‘post-modern’ speech. Overall though I think Peterson has done more good than harm and I’m certainly bored of watching the whole conflated media heist that was (it’s done for now it seems) Peterson’s contributions to pop-social science and the social media frenzy that explodes whenever anyone is vaguely offended by someone they disagree with..

No one is completely right and no one is completely wrong.

I’m sure stoicism is a great approach for some people, but I truly believe it is naive to assume to suits all, or even most, personalities. I’m interested to learn more about the modern take on stoicism with the questions posed. I’ve only read sections of Epi., Aur. and Sen. I’m generally opposed to wholesale ‘ethical’ positions, yet I do think they are useful for communicating individual moral stances and exploring ideas about innate morality and law and order.

Quoting I like sushi

Overall though I think Peterson has done more good than harm and I’m certainly bored of watching the whole conflated media heist that was (it’s done for now it seems) Peterson’s contributions to pop-social science and the social media frenzy that explodes whenever anyone is vaguely offended by someone they disagree with..

Yes, Peterson is a pretty interesting character, though, I think he owes a debt to Stoic thought, that he doesn't necessarily acknowledge. Some people might think he's reinventing the wheel in regards to Stoicism and its practical applications to modern-day living.

I mean, cite your sources, for goodness sake.

I just noticed that Philosophy Day has passed - Thurs 21st November.
https://philosophydayatccny.wordpress.com
...and wondered what the Prof's input had been.
Not got there yet, but found this:

https://massimopigliucci.wordpress.com/author/mpigliucci/

Massimo links to several articles he has come across recently which he thinks worth considering.
One here which might put the cat among the pigeons:

Quoting Massimo Pigliucci

I wish I’d never been born: the rise of the anti-natalists. [I still think this is more than a bit silly, but whatever.] * (Guardian)

Now, this is interesting - when I used the quote function, it didn't include his throwaway opinion:

* [ I still think this is more than a bit silly, but whatever.]

Hmmm...
Next question...how would he more fully respond to this apparently growing philosophical view ?
Or would he think it not worth it ?

We've now updated Prof. Pigliucci on this discussion and as we've got enough material to choose from, we'll close it for now. Many thanks for all your efforts and enthusiasm. More information to come soon.

PMs have been sent inviting contributors to begin discussions. All of those who contributed a developed question/set of questions in the form of an OP have been contacted and OPs will begin to be visible from now.

Again, we much appreciate everyone's help in getting this event off the ground.

Reply to Baden
Congratulations to all chosen OPs :smile:
Also to team who made this happen. Well done, guys !
Looking forward to the discussions between you and Massimo Pigliucci.

Reply to Amity

Cheers. By the way all, in order to make sure no-one else accidentally (or otherwise!) posts in the Guest Speaker discussions apart from Prof Pigliucci and those chosen to participate, I've had to set custom permissions for this category, which means that for the moment at least, no discussion here, including this one, can be commented on by regular members.

Edit: Topics listed here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/32/massimo-pigliucci

@Baden, can we get an estimate when Prof. Pigliucci will join us?

Reply to Wallows

We're hoping he'll have time during this first week of December. If I get any firmer information, I'll let you know.

Reply to Wallows

Massimo has now joined the site. :smile:

(By the way, I ask that members please observe decorum and not send Prof. Pigliucci any unsolicited PMs. I expect he's likely to have enough on his plate with the questions here. Thanks.)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7176/limitations-of-science-and-the-use-of-philosophy

Our first reply :D

Just to add that the way we've organized this with Prof. Pigliucci is that he'll answer the five OPs gradually and then he may, if he has time, follow up on some of the discussions. Obviously, there's a lot of information in the OPs, so we appreciate any responses we get and we hope those reading enjoy the event and learn something from it.

Hope for everything and expect nothing :)

I’m hoping for a follow up, if not then I’ll just have to make do with the Stoicism stuff.

Seems Prof. Pigliucci is more busy than he thought and doesn't have much time to reply to anything, unfortunately.

That's the bad news. The good news is we've opened up the discussions now, so anyone can post there. Yay!

Eh, anyway, we put a lot of effort into this and did our best to make it work. And I'm proud of all of us and the community as a whole for trying. :clap:

Quoting Baden

Eh, anyway, we put a lot of effort into this and did our best to make it work. And I'm proud of so of us and the community as a whole for trying. :clap:

Wallowsome; but, everything is OK.

Reply to Wallows

Time to be stoical? :grin:

Quoting Baden

Time to be stoical? :grin:

I suppose so. At least we got one reply.

:blush:

Reply to Wallows

That's the spirit!

Quoting Baden

we put a lot of effort into this and did our best to make it work. And I'm proud of all of us and the community as a whole for trying. :clap:

Yes indeed.
And Massimo must be pretty pleased too. All that free publicity...

Quoting Amity

Yes indeed.
And Massimo must be pretty pleased too. All that free publicity...

The grapes are sour.

Reply to Wallows
Reply to Amity
Reply to Baden

Let us all pray to Massimo. OHMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

He has suggested trying again in the future some time, with just one thread and a more general topic.

Reply to Wallows
From the Fox and the Grapes ?
'The moral of the story is that you often hate what you can't have.'
I don't hate anyone.
Not even when they don't live up to my expectations.
It is what it is, as they say...

*

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

We modelled the format from the way it was done on the previous site, but, yes, we'll likely introduce word limits on questions and maybe reduce the number of OPs in future.

Quoting tim wood

very short and more-or-less open-ended , or, very short and specific questions are best to start with.

Quoting tim wood

give our guest the space?

Quoting Baden

We modelled the format from the way it was done on the previous site, but, yes, we'll likely introduce word limits on questions and maybe reduce the number of OPs in future.

I suppose this should really go in the Feedback section.
I think that the format is problematic.

If there is to be a Guest Speaker, would it not be best for that person to suggest suitable format.
For example, Massimo seems to prefer a single thread with a general topic.

Quoting jamalrob

He has suggested trying again in the future some time, with just one thread and a more general topic.

If Massimo started the discussion, I think people would have sense and show courtesy ?
A single thread would be easier to moderate...

Then again, if this type of posting persists from the likes of @ovdtogt
''If that's what stoicism means it is total crap."

Is there a way to pre-moderate ?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to jamalrob Something specific would be better. Any of us can easily find out about his general ideas so I don’t see exactly what purpose it would serve anyone to listen to repeats.

I’m not interested in stoicism so went for his views on the limitations of science and philosophy. I was expecting more depth than what I’ve heard in podcasts or youtube talks.

Quoting tim wood

We have ours and our brother's and sister's loquaciousness whenever we like. Maybe better to be succinct, here, and give our guest the space?

That’s probably a better option. Let him open with some ideas and then have us take a run at them rather than have him juggle with ideas that don’t really engage with his wants/needs. I think the stoicism side of things holds more sway here rather than discussing the problems of science and epistemic issues of communicating scientific concepts.

There is something to be said about Sellars and Husserl. I’ll have to look further into Sellars, but at a glance there is more in common between Sellars and Husserl than not. The problem is likely more about the breadth of terms like ‘natural’ and ‘empiricism’. I’ve haven’t found anything in Sellars’ yet that overrides what Husserl was about. As with Heidegger it looks like another case of taking one aspect of the phenomenological perspective and cutting it away as if it’s something different.

*

Reply to jamalrob Reply to Baden Reply to fdrake

Perhaps we can try again sometime with a different philosopher. I like some of his ideas, and I enjoyed his single post, but even among professionals not everyone is the most.... reliable.

To be fair, end of the semester is perhaps not the best time to orchestrate this kind of thing either. Especially the end-of-semester-right-between-holidays time.

I certainly think it would be a shame if people put in the amount of time and effort they have for Prof. Pigliucci only to be disappointed again.

Live and learn, as they say.

In the meantime, thank you to everyone who did put time and effort in. As a member of the peanut-munching crowd, it was appreciated.

Ditto Reply to Artemis thoughts...

I was actually working on something to ask, but spent too much time researching his works, and missed the deadline. Here's what I had...



Hey professor Pigliucci,

Alas, time is of the essence here...

After reading your blog Footnotes to Plato, I've come to admire the skeptical approach first set out in the section called Between strident atheism and vanilla ecumenicism. This is just the beginning of much agreement between our respective world-views. The similarity between our lines of thought reaches striking proportions. I couldn't help but to find myself in agreement as I read through your writings on a variety of different subject matters. If only I were as eloquent...

Thank you for being here.




I'm particularly intrigued by the criterion you've put forth for determining what counts as pseudo-science. To be as precise as possible, I'm skeptical of the amount of value we ought place upon one particular element therein...

Peer review.

As we all know, consensus does not guarantee truth. So, it could be the case that one follows all of the rules governing what counts as an acceptable scientific endeavor, and still yet arrives at contradictory conclusions to their contemporaries. These actual scenarios(all paradigm shifts) are the strongest empirical ground for tempering the peer review portion of the standard. Too much value placed in peer review renders an immutable - unshakably certain - standard in our current knowledge base. We will be forced to say that such cases are pseudoscience.

How do we best temper our judgment here, according to the Stoicism you advocate, particularly when judging and/or determining what counts as an acceptable theory of all human thought and belief(a notion than many find a need for)?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It wasn't finished because I wanted to better tie it into his thoughts about philosophy straddling between science and social structures... ah well. I'm glad to have found out about the professor.

Quoting Artemis

I certainly think it would be a shame if people put in the amount of time and effort they have for Prof. Pigliucci only to be disappointed again.

Live and learn, as they say.

In the meantime, thank you to everyone who did put time and effort in. As a member of the peanut-munching crowd, it was appreciated.

It is not likely that I will put in similar effort in future.

Indeed, it is an ongoing puzzle why I still participate in any philosophy forum.
So very tiresome...all efforts seem to disappear down a deep, dark hole.

Best Wishes.

Quoting Amity

It is not likely that I will put in similar effort in future.

Indeed, it is an ongoing puzzle why I still participate in any philosophy forum.
So very tiresome...all efforts seem to disappear down a deep, dark hole.
I guess I need another break...

Early in the nineteenth century, a Hungarian playwright wrote a masterpiece, not translated into English, due to its language being in iambic meters, rhyming, and in Hungarian; this masterpiece, "The Tragedy of Man" had to deal with Adam looking for a home after being tossed from the garden (the first recipe for tossed garden salad), and he travels not only in space, but in time as well, reaching as far as the planet Mars. He is being guided through the ages by Satan, trying to sell him real estate in a multitude of disguises he wears.

Anyhow, I never read the play, it is long and tedious, like all epic masterpieces. Apparently Adam is unsuccessful in his journey for finding a habitable spot in the known universe. But the ending is the inspiring call by god as Adam exeunts left stage with a long chin:

"MAN, KEEP ON STRIVING, AND HANG ON TO YOUR HOPES!!"

Quoting Amity

It is not likely that I will put in similar effort in future.

Isn't the effort its own reward though? When is effort truly wasted?

If I were a philosophy professor, spending 40+ hours a week teaching, studying, researching, and discussing philosophy, I'd be encouraged that there is an online community devoted to my passion, and I'd try to promote it the best I could, even possibly accepting an invitation to participate, but then quickly realizing I simply lacked the time to do it justice. I totally get it.

Reply to Hanover I know the feeling. Unlikely to make that 13th December deadline. Sorry boss.

Quoting Amity

So very tiresome...all efforts seem to disappear down a deep, dark hole.

There is a reason you philosophize, there is something you attempt to move towards through philosophy. In times of hardship there is only faith in that thing that keeps you connected, and that’s what you hold onto. Appearances aren’t what they seem, what seems to be wasted efforts can turn out to be fruitful in unexpected ways.

Reply to creativesoul
Yeah, I do appreciate Pigliucci's approach, acknowledging the historical and social elements of science which seem to be overlooked. Scientific communities are institutions that have ways of life and idiosyncrasies which are still based on philosophical underpinnings towards the findings (usually a conservative approach to how the findings compare with previous research).

I think his approach is most useful in science/math education. I think it much more enlightening and holistic to provide the context for which these mathematicians and scientists were working and discovering their theories. To just present the theories in a vacuum, as if there was no human struggle with how to understand them, or how the concepts developed over time, is to exclude the actual thinking-processes from the conclusions they wrought.

A recent Aeon publication by Prof. Piggliuci, Consciousness is Real. (I lost interest at mention of Dennett.)

Quoting Amity

It is an ongoing puzzle why I still participate in any philosophy forum.
So very tiresome...all efforts seem to disappear down a deep, dark hole.

I do get that. Oftentimes I feel the same and have quit, never to return, on more than one occasion. (Thought about it again today!) But then, people spend inordinate amounts of time on game sites, social media, and many worse things. At least discussion of philosophy has some actual intellectual merit, even if the signal-to-noise ratio fluctuates wildly. Hang in, as your name indicates, you're one of the more amicable. :up:

(Oh, and I forgot to say - I'm gradually, gradually overcoming the near irresistible urge to tell those I disagree with what I think. That alone is worth the time spent here.)

Incidentally, and apropos Pugliucci's essay, I note this passage quoted from Searle:

[quote=John Searle]What I want to insist on, ceaselessly, is that one can accept the obvious facts of physics – for example, that the world is made up entirely of physical particles in fields of force – without at the same time denying the obvious facts about our own experiences – for example, that we are all conscious and that our conscious states have quite specific irreducible phenomenological properties.[/quote]

I think a much better argument is the inescapable presence of meaning - that is, everything we say about, oh, physics, brain states, neurology, evolution, or whatever - relies on an (often implicit) ability to interpret, to say what these things mean. And this is nowhere described by physics, or any of the so-called 'hard sciences', because it must precede those sciences; If we are not able to make meaningful statements, then we're not going to be able to pursue any science whatever. Of course, this is why C.S. Peirce has suddenly become so influential particularly in biological sciences; because his work on semiotics is all about meaning, signs, signification and so on. But none of this has anything directly to do with what is generally called 'the hard problem', or with the reality or otherwise of consciousness. It's a much more direct argument than that, as it's not about the ostensible properties of things, such as brain-states, or intentions, or anything else objective: is says that meaning, in the most general and the broadest sense, is not something that can ever be accounted for in terms of the objective sciences, because meaning is always a matter of interpretation, and the objective sciences always rely on at least some interpretation, they're not truly 'observer-free'.

And that, incidentally, also undermines the argument about 'emergence'. Consciousness - actually I prefer 'mind' - is not an objective reality but that which any objective argument presupposes. And even in the most simple life-forms, the experience of being - let's just say 'being' - is manifest, and this is not an objectively-existent reality so much as the ground of any objective judgement (at least when it evolves to the state of rational and language-using being). The problem with modern philosophy is that it forgets this presupposition by 'bracketing out the subjective', and then forgets what it has done (which I think is connected to Heidegger's 'forgetfulness of being'.)

Quoting Wayfarer

C.S. Peirce has suddenly become so influential particularly in biological sciences; because his work on semiotics...

Draws a distinction between syntax and semantics as a means to take account of meaning. That's a fatal flaw. Both syntax and semantics consist of and are therefore existentially dependent upon common language use. Meaning, in it's most basic rudimentary form, is not. Hence, the fatal flaw of inherent inadequacy to be able to properly account for all meaning.

Quoting Wayfarer

A recent Aeon publication by Prof. Piggliuci, Consciousness is Real. (I lost interest at mention of Dennett.)

I think of consciousness as a weakly emergent phenomenon, not dissimilar from, say, the wetness of water (though a lot more complicated). Individual molecules of water have a number of physical-chemical properties, but wetness isn’t one of them. They acquire that property only under specific environmental circumstances (in terms of ambient temperature and pressure) and only when there is a sufficiently large number of them.

It seems he doesn’t see that even if the motions of a liquid can be explained from the motions of the molecules that compose the liquid, that doesn’t explain in any way how the motions of these molecules can give rise to the sensation of wetness. Going down that path we can hope to explain the motions of a brain based on the motions of the molecules that compose the brain, but that still won’t tell us in any way how these motions of the brain give rise to any sensation. We’re only explaining motions in terms of other motions, we aren’t at any point bridging the gap between motion and emotion.

Also he repeatedly dismisses dualism through appeals to authority, that’s not much of an argument.

So what happened with Massimo? Did he ever show up?

Reply to Pussycat

Yes, briefly.

Reply to Baden Indeed, I found his one and only post. Was there any explanation as to why he quit?

Reply to Pussycat

Time pressure.