The Cyrenaics were the original hedonists, far more so than their more successful later competitors, the Epicureans. Their creed was that pleasure is the only true good, and by pleasure they meant physical and immediate. No delayed gratification for them, and no fancy intellectual stuff either. The Cyrenaics were the true sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll practitioners of the ancient world!
Yet Richard Bett, in his chapter in the collection Skepticism: From Antiquity to Present, considers the possibility that the Cyreanics were also skeptic, at least when it came to their epistemology, their theory of knowledge.
Sextus Empiricus, the major exponent of the Pyrrhonist school (well, other than Pyrrhus himself!) disagreed. He pointed out, to begin with, that the goal of a Cyrenaic life was pleasure, while the goal of a Skeptic life is ataraxia, freedom from worry. But that, frankly, is neither here nor there. Ataraxia is no more inherently a skeptical goal than virtue or pleasure. Just consider that the Cicero, a prominent member of the other school of Greco-Roman skepticism, the Academics, thought that the goal of is to live virtuously, similar to what the Stoics also maintained. … (continue at Substack)
How can we be more virtuous? Can we teach our children virtue? And what about politicians? Well, the latter is probably the most difficult, but continuing our current cycle of cynicism isn’t exactly helping us out either…
So what can we actually do to make a better society for ourselves… and for the next generation? In this video, Anya Leonard of Classical Wisdom talks to Massimo Pigliucci, the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York and author of many books, including How to Be a Stoic: Using Ancient Philosophy to Live a Modern Life and, most recently, How to Be Good: What Socrates Can Teach Us About the Art of Living Well.
On Monday evening, Finna Ayres and Matt Turnbull met in Ayres’s London home to do something their friends would have found shocking: watch the latest season of “The Crown,”Netflix’s show about the ins and outs of Britain’s royal family.
Ayres, 80, a retired architect, and Turnbull, 35, a brand strategist, are members of Republic, an organization that wants to abolish Britain’s monarchy in favor of an elected head of state. Neither were fans of the show, but had agreed to watch the new season as an experiment.
The evening ahead was such a potentially unsettling experience that Turnbull had brought two packs of beer with him. “If I’m going to sit through a hagiography for the royal family, I need to be lubricated,” he said. … (continue at The New York Times)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once wrote a letter to his long-time correspondent, the composer Carl Friedrich Zelter, to lament our inability to live in the present moment, to grasp its essential healthiness. The Greco-Romans, says Goethe, understood that the present is pregnant with meaning, and to them it was sufficient in itself. By contrast, Goethe continues, for us moderns the ideal is the future, while we consider the present to be banal.
“Then the spirit looks neither ahead nor behind. Only the present is our happiness.” (Second Faust)
Pierre Hadot—in his Philosophy as a Way of Life—reminds us of Goethe’s analysis, adding that the ancients articulated the concept of kairos, the favorable or decisive instant. To be able to grasp the kairos is the key to our accomplishments. For instance, a good general strikes when the kairos is right; a good artist fixes in marble or on canvas the best kairos of whatever scene she is working on; and so forth.
But Hadot also warns against idealizing the Greco-Romas, thinking that they somehow managed to live a life of bliss and lack of stress. On the contrary, they were just as burdened by the past and preoccupied for the future as we are. And that’s exactly what prompted the evolution of life philosophies like Stoicism and Epicureanism. In fact. to “convert” to a philosophical way of life means, to a great extent, to develop a renewed appreciation for the healthiness of the moment as a way to achieve serenity. … (continue at Substack)
Ken Frazier has passed away a few days ago. His death affected me more than I would have anticipated. We were not close friends, largely because we have lived our lives thousands of kilometers apart and had only a few opportunities to spend time together at conferences. But I have known of Ken for most of my life, and met him personally the first time in 1999. It has been an occasional, but long relationship.
Ken was the longtime editor of Skeptical Inquirer, the premier magazine devoted to fighting pseudoscience and defending reason and science. Indeed, Ken has been the editor since the magazine changed its name from the rather unwieldy “Zetetic,” back in 1978. He has written essays in every issue for 35 years.
He has also published a number of books, most recently Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. He won the American Humanist Association’s Humanist Pioneer Award for his “effective worldwide advancement of rational skepticism,” and was elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science because of his “distinguished contributions to the public understanding of science through writing for and editing popular science magazines that emphasize science news and scientific reasoning and methods.”
But you can read about Ken’s accomplishments on his Wikipedia page. You can also check out his memorial page, with testimonies from many friends and colleagues. He was a steady light for the skeptical movement, as well as one of the most decent human beings I’ve ever met, and will be sorely missed. … (continue at Substack, FREE)
Here goes an old joke about skepticism. Two skeptics meet at a convention. One of them says, “Hi, I don’t believe we’ve met.” The other responds: “I don’t believe you don’t believe we met…”
Skeptics have that sort of reputation, or worse. A friend of mine, who has been working for many years on behalf of a group known as New York City Skeptics, tells me that he avoids using “the s-word” in public, because a typical reaction is something along the lines of “ah, those are the people that don’t believe in anything, right?”
In fact, skepticism comes from the Latin scepticus, which itself derives from the Greek skeptikos, meaning “inquiring, reflective.” To be a skeptic, then, means to reflect and inquire about things. A most commendable attitude, I should think!
And yet, it isn’t just the person in the street who is distrustful of skeptics. Many professional philosophers are too! Here is Kant venting his frustration about a particularly vexing (to him) example of skepticism:
“It … remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us … should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof.” (Refutation of Idealism, in Critique of Pure Reason) … (continue at Substack)
If the language of the internet is anything to go by, America’s collective mental health is in shambles. Before the midterms, some of us were suffering from “election stress disorder”; others have left Elon Musk-acquired Twitter as an act of boundary-setting. Our political lives have become saturated with the language and imagery of therapy. Our personal lives too: The language of “trauma” and “attachment styles” has become a common way to understand ourselves and our relationships.
Increased awareness of the importance of mental health is no bad thing, especially in the aftermath of a punishing pandemic. But in many cases, the prevalence of what The New Yorker’sKaty Waldman has termed “Instagram therapy” has exacerbated a broader cultural trend toward solipsism, masquerading as “self-care.” The idea of self-care, in turn, has been largely divorced from its links to activism and is now often used to frame individual pleasurable actions, like taking a bubble bath or canceling plans, as morally worthy, even necessary. The exhortation to take care of ourselves, to protect our mental well-being at any cost, has become a mantra for a newly dominant ideology. … (continue at The New York Times)
I’m going to bet that it is going to be hard to find anyone who has never heard of Socrates. Even in this world of social media and alternative realities the name of Socrates is essentially synonymous with philosophy. Which doesn’t mean one necessarily knows anything about the sage of Athens, or about philosophy. (Which is fair enough. I can name Taylor Swift, for instance, but not a single one of her songs…)
Pierre Hadot, in his influential Philosophy as a Way of Life is interested in Socrates, not necessarily the historical person, about which it is hard to say much anyway, but the philosophical figure, which has become a symbol for philosophy itself.
He begins with his (alleged) physical appearance. Socrates was ugly, by universal agreement of all the available sources: Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. As Nietzsche put it: “Everything in him is exaggerated, buffo, a caricature.” (Twilight of the Idols. The Problem of Socrates, 3-4) Hadot writes:
“Alcibiades, in his famous speech in praise of Socrates at the end of the Symposium, compares Socrates to the little statues of Sileni [a kind of ugly satyr] that could be found in sculptors’ shops, which concealed little figurines of the gods inside themselves. Similarly, Socrates’ exterior appearance—ugly, buffoon-like, impudent, almost monstrous—was only a mask and a facade.” (p. 148)
And it wasn’t just his physical appearance. Socrates often behaved like a buffoon, pretending to be naive and not too bright. In Plato’s Symposium, Alcibiades says: “He spends his whole life playing the part of a simpleton and a child.” (216e) … (continue at Substack)
Justine Karst, a mycologist at the University of Alberta, feared things had gone too far when her son got home from eighth grade and told her he had learned that trees could talk to each other through underground networks.
Her colleague, Jason Hoeksema of the University of Mississippi, had a similar feeling when watching an episode of “Ted Lasso” in which one soccer coach told another that trees in a forest cooperated rather than competed for resources.
Few recent scientific discoveries have captured the public’s imagination quite like the wood-wide web — a wispy network of fungal filaments hypothesized to shuttle nutrients and information through the soil and to help forests thrive. The idea sprouted in the late 1990s from studies showing that sugars and nutrients can flow underground between trees. In a few forests, researchers have traced fungi from the roots of one tree to those of others, suggesting that mycelial threads could be providing conduits between trees.
These findings have challenged the conventional view of forests as a mere population of trees: Trees and fungi are, in fact, coequal players on the ecological stage, scientists say. Without both, forests as we know them wouldn’t exist. … (continue at The New York Times)