Beyond Empiricism
A discussion on the relationship between empiricism, science, and philosophy.
This is a conversation that took place over the International Stoic Forum email list, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ in June of 2005. The topic was Started by Nigel Glassborow and was titled, "Beyond Empiricism". It took place after another conversation on whether or not the Divine Fire concept in Stoicism was a conscious being capable of reason, as opposed to something which is based on reason but not conscious itself. Therefore, the discussion occasionally drifts into caveats on this. But primarily, it is about empiricism and the scientific approach. The content has been edited for typos, format, and readability.
The participants include Nigel Glassborow (Nigel, blue text), Dr. Keith Seddon (Keith, orange text), DT Strain (DT, black text), Rick Bamford (Rick, green text), and Dr. Jan Garrett (Jan, violet text).
================================
Nigel (to all):
I have been involved in many debates (discussions) on this forum over the understanding of the nature of the Divine Fire. I have had great difficulty in understanding the view point of those who appear to deny any scope for the Divine Fire to be ‘conscious’ – that is that it is reasoning and has a will.
I have seen it as a debate over what Stoicism views to be the nature of an aspect of the Cosmos that the Stoics of old called the Divine Fire, God or Zeus amongst many other names.
The debate has at times got heated, partly because I have been confused at the denial of the Stoic view of the Divine Fire even though we are discussing such on a site dedicated to Stoicism. I now realise that while I have been discussing the Stoic view, and through such debate hoping to gain greater insight into the Stoic understanding of the Divine Fire, in fact most of those arguing against me are not discussing the Stoic view point but their own – see the more recent references to empirical materialism and transcendence.
To add to this it has become obvious that there is a miss-match to the debate. I am talking about ‘apples’, others are talking about ‘pears’.
I am talking about living this life as a spark of the Divine Fire. Others appear to be talking about the mechanics behind what we experience. I am talking about the ‘driver’; they are talking about the ‘car’. I am interested in where the ‘driver’ is taking us; they appear to be more interested in the make and model of the ‘car’.
I now see that there are those who are comfortable to see only what science sees, and want to see no further. All the scientific talk, including the talk of cause and effect, is simply discussing what is being manifested in the flow of existence. I, like the Stoics of old, have been discussing what manifests not only that which obeys the laws of science and nature but manifests the very laws themselves.
The Stoics of old looked at the order in the universe (the laws of cause and effect etc) and saw within all of this the reasoning faculty of the living Cosmos – the Divine Fire. To the Stoics there are two principles to what makes up the Cosmos as a whole. The passive principle is matter (energy) that does nothing on its own – not even obey the laws of cause and effect. Only by ‘adding’ the active principle is matter seen to operate in a ‘sensible’ manner.
Basically, without the active principle nothing would exist. The Stoics clearly saw that while the passive principle and the active principle are merely different aspects of a oneness, unless there is at least these two aspects there would be nothing, for the passive cannot be without the active, and the active cannot be without the passive. However much intellectuals might try to explain how things evolved to their present state as we see it, in finding possible explanations for how the processes involved work, they do not explain how and why the ‘laws’ came into being, and what sustains them.
All the modern theories in the world that describe individual aspects of existence that we see manifested around us do not even begin to contemplate that which does the manifesting for they are limited by their very sphere of investigation. Science is not up to the job when it comes to understanding itself in relation to that which manifests that which it studies. It is only capable of studying that which has been manifested. It cannot study that which caused the manifestation, so it is not in a position to comment on the nature of such, and it is especially not equipped with any knowledge, evidence or observation that allows it to deny the existence of that which causes things to manifest. Any such denial is based solely on human-centric egotism – a false belief that many scientist have, that of believing that their minds are superior to anything else. They are afraid to consider the fact that there is something that is superior to them, something that they cannot measure, weigh or dissect. In their desperation to deny ‘God’ they sacrifice all their supposed scientific principle and cling to ideological bunkum, while denying the wisdom of the ages.
I do not see it as sensible to follow the egotism of many of the scientists. Basically being an ‘empirical materialist’ means that one is going to ignore anything in life that cannot be experimented on or cannot be observed. The mistake in seeing such empiricism as being akin to Stoicism is that the Stoics saw everything as being aspects of the basic material that is the Cosmos, so being classed as materialists, but where they part company from the empiricist is that the Stoics see this matter as being imbued with ‘spirit’. The empiricist’s accusation that such is transcendent is simply an admission that it is beyond the sphere that they are willing to consider. It is beyond their incomplete picture of the Cosmos. To the Stoic the Divine Fire is not transcendent for it certainly is not ‘beyond’ in any sense of the word. It is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us.
The ’fuzziness’ recently referred to is not to be found in Stoicism, but it is to be observed within scientific observation and theory where ‘at a point matter seems to disintegrate into a fuzzy nothingness’ (using words I read in a paper by a scientist). So it is empiricism that experiences fuzziness, while Stoicism sees no such fuzziness. There is absolute clarity. There is the Divine Fire. There is an active principle to the Cosmos as a whole, a oneness, a reasoning faculty, an intelligence, a will – all belonging to the living Cosmos.
As to if any of the words we use describe exactly the same thing when applied to a human being as they do when applied to the Cosmos as a whole, or convey a full understanding of what we are trying to describe, I very much doubt. The lack of ability of a word to convey what is being described in no way diminishes that which is being described. I can know with absolute clarity the purpose of a chair, without being able to describe every aspect of it. So also there is an obvious common sense understanding by any reasonable person as to what concepts are being considered when we Stoics talk of the Cosmos as living and having a reasoning faculty, intelligence and a will etc. The concept of life when applied to the Cosmos may be different than the concept of life when applied to creatures and such like on this planet, but the use of the word ‘living’ gives an understanding of what is being suggested.
We Stoics, in part, use common perceptions both to understand and to describe various aspects of existence and aspects of the Cosmos. An overview of empirical studies is just another part of what is needed to arrive at any real understanding. But to limit ourselves to the output of empirical studies only would be illogical and irrational. To a Stoic, such would show a lack of wisdom.
================================
Keith (to DT):
I am inclined to think that the Stoics understood the divine fire to be conscious, or rather, self-conscious, as a being who has an experience of things, can think about things and who undertakes actions as an agent -- as human beings do. If the souls of human beings are understood to be fragments of Zeus, the divine fire than pervades the cosmos, and *we* are self-conscious, it seems hard to make sense of the idea that Zeus is not conscious of what I am conscious of, and is not conscious of what everyone throughout the course of history was/is/will be conscious of. At the very least, He must be conscious of that...
Diogenes Laertius (7.147 = LS 54A) says that god is an animal that has a commanding-faculty (hegemonikon); Cicero in The Nature of the Gods (1.39 = LS 54B) says that god is the world's commanding-faculty. The commanding-faculty is the locus of self-conscious experience, of rational thought, and the power of agency. Just as the soul of a human being is conceived as the rational commanding-faculty of a person, so Zeus is conceived as the rational commanding-faculty of the whole universe.
I don't see how it can make any sense to discuss Zeus in these terms without holding that He is self-conscious.
The Stoics also talk of Zeus being provident, and again, that doesn't seem to make any sense unless He intends to bring about the history of the world just as it happens, as a self-conscious agent.
================================
DT (to Nigel):
Thanks for this. Your letter here seems to really give me a clear picture of the points we're dealing with, and gets to the heart of your conceptions of them.
Instead, I have so far only meant to question whether or not believing that it IS Conscious, is a *part of* the Stoic philosophy. And, even then, I am not claiming that it isn't - I honestly am trying to find out. In the process of finding that out, however, I must bring up points that have come from my readings to see how they relate to what you're saying, and see if there is a way to resolve what seem to be conflicts between them.
I know that you are claiming, specifically, that a belief in the Consciousness of the Divine Fire is part of the Stoic philosophy-proper, but nothing you have said or presented so far from the literature shows that it is. I fully expect there may be some evidence that this is part of the Stoic philosophy, which we may yet have someone present to us though. When I say I want to see this, I am not being facetious or patronizing - I genuinely want to know if there is some reference to classic writings that show they believed the Divine Fire was, not just imbued with Reason or operating according to Reason, but actually capable of Conscious reasoning itself, which I honestly don't know.
In fact, I'm a bit frustrated that despite my pleas, including one personally-directed request, I have yet to see anyone except you and one other person weigh in on this important issue. I know we have several scholars here who know far more than I, but none seem willing to address the question: "Is there anything in the historic literature on Stoicism that suggests that the belief of the Divine Fire being a Conscious entity, is a central part of Stoicism-proper?" I seek two things: A response on this from others on this list, and a response from you showing specifically this in particular historic writings.
This seems like one of the more original things about Stoicism - otherwise, if its just that they saw an orderly universe and expected that, because of that order, a God did it, then they are no different than the many other monotheistic religions, only using different terms for things.
I see now that you are thinking of mass-energy as the passive, and then this other thing of some sort as the active. You may be right but this was not the understanding I had from my reading. If you could provide more on your thinking of this it would be appreciated.
To make sure I'm understanding you, let me rephrase what I think you're saying here and you can tell me if I get it or if I'm off base. You seem to be saying that the Stoics were only classed as materialists because they saw everything as being part of the Cosmos, but nevertheless saw matter as being imbued with 'spirit'.
Is the 'spirit' material or not? On this point I'm not sure what you'd say. You are either suggesting that Stoics believe the 'spirit' which imbued the matter was material itself, or it was immaterial. Let us look at these two options...
OPTION 1: Spirit is immaterial:
If this were the case, then the Stoics simply thinking of all of it as part of the Cosmos would not be enough for them to be classed as materialists, for nearly anyone could think that. Christians and many other modern perspectives view matter as material and imbued with immaterial spirit, yet consider it all part of existence. There would be little difference between Stoics and any of the other dualists if this were the case. Stoics would simply be faith-based dualists like so many other religions. Yet, that is not the overall impression I get from what I read and what other Stoics seem to be saying. I could very well be wrong about that impression though.
You say, "To the Stoic the Divine Fire is not transcendent for it certainly is not 'beyond' in any sense of the word. It is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us." But Christians believe this very thing about the Holy Spirit, yet it would be quite a stretch to consider them materialists.
OPTION 2: Spirit is material:
If this were the case, then we could call the Stoics Monists and Materialists (which they *are* called). But it would also mean that the spirit must consist of material properties, which can be measured. This would be akin to things like electrical charge, gravity, magnetism, and so on (and may actually be what they meant by the "active"). In any case, this sort of 'spirit' would be within the realm of empirical study, and wouldn't seem to be of the nature you speak.
I suspect your position may be a somewhat different option, or perhaps another take on one of these options which I have yet to realize, so I will carefully read your response.
By contrast, it seems to me that what the Stoics were talking about, was that there is an active and a passive component to the material world (mass = passive, energy = active), and that all of this interacted according to cause and effect. Indeed, this C&E seems to be very reason the Stoics were fatalists. And, that all of this fatalistic, deterministic, material soup of interaction by C&E was the Cosmos/Nature. And this Nature operated according to Reason and Logos, and the Divine Fire was a description of this tumultuous act of continual creation. Everything I've read of Heraclitus on the Divine Fire seems to indicate to me this is what he was talking about. Consider the following description of Heraclitus' concept, from http://www.archaeonia.com ...
"As fire is the primary form of reality, the process of combustion is the key both to human life and to that of the world. It is a process that never rests; for a flame must always be fed by fresh exhalations as fuel, and it is always turning into vapor or smoke. The steadiness of the flame depends on the 'measures' of fuel kindled and the 'measures' of fire extinguished in smoke remaining constant. Now the world is 'an everliving fire' (fr. 20), and therefore there will be an unceasing process of eternal flux (panta pei)."
This sounds remarkably like the strictly physical and empirical processes of nature as we understand them today. They continue...
"For Hereclitus, everything is in this process of flux, and nothing therefore, not even the world in its momentary form, nor the gods themselves, can escape final destruction. That will apply to the world at large (macrocosm) and also to the soul of humans (microcosm). Concerning the larger world, 'You cannot step twice into the same river' (fr. 41); concerning the human soul, it is just as true that 'we are and are not' at any given moment. As fire changes continually into water and then into earth, so earth changes back to water and water again to fire. The world, therefore, arose from fire, and in alternating periods is resolved again into fire, to form itself anew out of this element. The division of unified things into a multiplicity of opposing phenomena is "the way downwards," and is the consequence of a war and a strife. Harmony and peace lead back to unity by "the way upwards." Nature is constantly dividing and uniting herself, so that the multiplicity of opposites does not destroy the unity of the whole."
This sounds to me like complex systems theory. His talk of fire into earth, water, etc. all seems like, if one were challenged to describe modern scientific and empirical theory on nature using only the terminologies and conceptions of ancient Greece, then this would be as close to it as one could possibly come.
It seems to me, not only that the Stoics were materialists, but that they employed what we would call an empirical approach. Two things may seem to cloud this impression, however.
For one, the scientific revolution of the enlightenment had yet to show that "proof" could not come through logical argument alone, but had to be based on observation. Lacking this discovery, the ancients often sought to "prove" things through rational argument alone. Nevertheless, it was apparent that their approach was not one of faith, so much as one of requiring people to back up their claims with logical proofs, with premises that at their root, could be determined through the five senses. In other words, it seemed obvious that, had they known of the standards of observation developed in the enlightenment, they would have taken this route as being in the spirit of their methodology, rather than employing faith into their logic.
A second thing that clouds our ability to distill the essence of Stoicism is that, although they employed similar methods as the materialists of today, they arrived at different conclusions, which included some off-base physics. But when one follows the line of thinking they used in reaching these conclusions, it becomes clear that the difference in conclusions is not due to a difference of values or of approach, but simply due to a difference of available data about the universe. When one looks at their methodology, approach to knowledge, and value system for determining truth, it seems pretty likely that had the ancient Stoics lived today, then they would have been empiricists with some different conclusions in their physics. But, amazingly, because their conceptions were generally on target, these differences would not have altered the fundamental foundational principles that support Stoic ethics - which is why Stoicism is so relevant today.
In short, you have the three divisions of Stoic thought: logic, physics, and ethics. The logic is pretty much the same (with only a bit of a difference in standard thanks to the enlightenment), but when you apply that logic to today's greater collection of raw information about the universe, you get a slightly different physics. Nevertheless, this physics still retains all of the essential principles which support Stoic ethics just as the earlier renditions of Stoic physics did.
That is the "new Stoicism" of today's time. When I look at what you are saying, there seem to be two issues in play. First, the conclusions you are suggesting seem to only hold up when operating before the advances of the enlightenment, and before the collection of basic facts about our universe that proceeded the ancient Greeks. But a *second* issue, completely separate, is whether or not even the ancients believed that the Divine Fire was a conscious entity with a will and an intellect that experienced qualia. Here, even when we only consider the classic, original version of Stoicism, I'm not certain that this was the case - but I am open to writings which show otherwise.
The more I read into this, the more convinced I become that Heraclitus, and seemingly Zeno perhaps, were speaking of something physics-related and functional-natural in structure, more akin to modern complexity and chaos theory (see the above as well as the quote of material on Heraclitus in my previous email to you).
But the later Stoics such as Chryssipus and Seneca seemed to really treat the Divine Fire as a more personified standard deity-figure of some sort, and sound more like your take - at least, according to my meager readings thus far.
And (if memory serves) Marcus Aurellius, which I *have* read, seems to back off from both positions, and simply focus on the ethics and applied living, leaving the physics as vague references to gods/Logos in a general sort of way that could be metaphorical or not, as if taken for granted or as if it didn't matter to him as much.
Perhaps you could apply your concept of the different "Stoa" to this evolution?
================================
Rick (to Nigel):
Hi Nigel. Apologies for the lengthy response, but I have contributed very little lately, so I feel I should make up for lost time. :)
Although there are many ways to delineate diametric personality types, I think two of them are empirical personalities and spiritual personalities. Empirical personalities run the gamut from the open-minded style I described for myself above, to the close-minded adamant atheist. Likewise, spiritual personalities run the gamut from the very lucid type (I would consider you to be in this category) to the close-minded religious fundamentalist. I do not consider either personality type to be wrong or bad, as long as they are moderate and not taken to their extremes. It's sort of like the old "Is the glass half full or half empty" analogy. We're all looking at the same objective glass, we just look at it from different subjective viewpoints.
For example, although I do not personally believe in gods, I do not (well, I no longer) chastise those who do. If someone makes a claim that something exists and which cannot be proven by science not to exist, then I have no problem with that, PROVIDED they do not hold out their belief as objective fact and try to force it upon others, as many religious and political groups try to do. However, if someone makes a claim that science can disprove, such as the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then they will hear an argument from me and my ilk, because there is plenty of evidence against their viewpoint.
Thus, I personally believe a positivist viewpoint is the most prudent, and that is why I stick with it. By positivist, I mean that only those aspects of reality/universe that can be impartially measured and universally experienced by anyone and everyone should be considered 'objective fact' and everything else should be considered 'subjective opinion.' This is NOT a value judgment that subjective opinions are somehow inferior to objective facts. Indeed, I have some subjective opinions that I feel are more important (to me) than some objective facts. All I'm saying is that objective facts, as I have just described them, can serve as a (reasonably*) solid foundation of knowledge, because since they are measurable, they can stand independent of subjective opinions (value judgments) about them.
*I say reasonably, because scientific knowledge is always changing as older, erroneous ways of understanding reality are supplanted by better, more correct ways. While this may give a superficial appearance of fragility, it is the best way to get to truth, so in the long run, it is the firmest footing for knowledge.
For example, you claim to have direct experience of the Divine Fire, so it is very real to you, just as the many incarnations of various gods are very real to traditional theists. However, there are many people like myself who have no direct experience of divinity of any sort. We have only the word of theists that such things exist. So who is right? Either the theists are correct and non-theists are somehow blind to the obvious, OR non-theists are correct and theists are seeing an illusion that isn't there. How can we know which is right? Neither position can be measured and independently verified, so neither position can therefore be honestly called a fact. Such things must therefore be considered opinions. Again, this does not mean that opinions are less important than facts, it is only a statement that opinions are not universally experience-able, and therefore cannot be used as a universal foundation of knowledge for all humanity. At best, opinions can only be used as a foundation of knowledge for subsets of humanity that believe in them (religions, philosophies, political groups, etc.).
Empiricism (science) rolls up its sleeves, puts on its spectacles, and tries to read the fine print of reality. That's why things get fuzzy for the scientist. Sometimes the print is too small to read. Sometimes it is in a language we haven't yet deciphered.
Every religion has made blanket statements similar to yours… that they "see with absolute clarity." Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. But what they each "see" with such clarity is all different from each other… how can that be, if they see the truth so clearly? It looks to me like they're all judging the book of nature by its cover. Or worse yet, they put a cover on it that suits them. Science opens the book and reads it, as best it can, even if it cannot see all the pages, or understand all the words.
================================
Jan (to all):
I agree mostly with what Keith says here about the probability that the classical Stoics regarded Zeus as conscious. What is interesting is that attributing to them a willingness to draw this conclusion is to attribute to them the use of reasoning by analogy. Reasoning by analogy is recognized nowadays as a form of inductive reasoning, a form of empirical reasoning. I think that the Stoics often use this type of reasoning, or at least it frames the way they develop their own concepts. The question I have is whether they consciously recognized, as an acceptable form of reasoning, arguments from analogy. I have looked in various standard collections of logical and epistemological fragments from the Stoics for direct statements of such a recognition but have not yet found any. If anybody has been able to do so, please let us know.
It is curious that the Stoics were able to say as much as they did about the nature of Zeus and how he operates without explicitly referring to his consciousness or experience. This suggests to me that many of them were aware of the skeptical challenges that they were likely to receive if they advanced a direct claim that Zeus was conscious on the basis of what skeptics would have said was weak analogical reasoning.
As an aside, I note that when Plato in his Laws tries to prove the existence of gods, he argues that the heavenly bodies (planets, sun, stars) are gods. He claims that the regularity of their movement is an indication that they are governed by intelligence. He does not say that they are conscious, only that they are intelligent. Their providential nature is demonstrated not by any direct awareness we have of their minds but by the way they structure a material world that is beneficial for humankind.
================================
DT (to Jan):
Thanks for the input Jan...
That's probably too stark to be 100% true. No doubt many of them did believe in gods, but how person-like those gods were to them, seem to be variable, with perhaps an overall average of "less person-like" among the philosophers than among the general population.
================================
Nigel (to DT):
Please also remember that I arrived at many of the same conclusions that the Stoics of old arrived at before I had ever read of Stoicism, and I had the benefit of modern knowledge. In fact I found the empiricism of the scientist lacking in its ability to offer a full and reasonable explanation for all that we see around us – I was faced with many apparent conflicts within what the scientists dressed up as knowledge, and discovered that much was little more than mythology.
I will add that the Stoic take is also that with the laws in place, the lawmaker cannot contravene them, which is why, from our view point, it is fortunate that Zeus gave us a spark of Its reasoning faculty and the freedom to use it.
================================
Nigel (to Rick):
You challenge me as follows, ‘So you see everything with absolute clarity, eh? Okay, so why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? How does gravity work? What causes inertia? If you can see with absolute clarity, then you can answer questions like these.’
I claimed that Stoicism sees matters with absolute clarity – not that I had such clarity. However I am willing to concede that such a claim was a bit over the top. What I suppose influenced my statement is a quote from Professor Gilbert Murray, ‘The Sceptics showed how the senses are notoriously fallible and contradictory, and how the laws of reasoning lead by equally correct processes to opposite conclusions. …. But Zeno had no patience with this sort of thing. He wanted to get to business.’ Basically no matter how much theorising and philosophising one does, one has to put aside doubts and believe in something in order to be able to get on with life. Stoicism is about finding clarity to the extent that we have a practical life philosophy to enable us to live ethically, rather than to dither about undecided and so act un-ethically through default. Stoicism is about reasoning out a structure by which to live, while always being willing to amend the structure if better reasoning comes along or practice proves to fall short of the aims. I believe that Stoicism has stood the test of time and so many of its ideas may be taken to demonstrate a high degree of clarity.
As to your challenge to explain the items you raise, I will answer this in a separate posting.
However the question of why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is another matter. The present problem for science is simply a matter of incorrect theorising on other observations. Remember that most of the science in this field is called theoretical science with good reason. So any theory based on what observations and hard science there is, is just as viable as the Big Bang Theory, if not more so if it can answer why the expansion of the Universe around us is accelerating.
According to Einstein’s theories there are nine possible shapes to the Universe. The Big Bang Theory mainly is based on the idea of it being the simplest form, that of a sphere that has expanded out from a singularity. Now, even this singularity is becoming an embarrassment for the Big Bang theorists, let alone the problem that according to the Big Bang Theory the expansion should be decelerating.
Back in the Eighties I read an article in one of the science journals that the mathematics appeared to be showing that in tracing the expansion back that it did not appear to meet at the supposed singularity, but instead appeared to be a flow that spread in the forms of arcs, rather than the straight lines of an explosion. At the same time I read a book called ‘Imagined Worlds’ (Paul Anderson & Deborah Cadbury, BBC publishing, 1985) in which Professor Roger Penrose offered a picture of the geometry that represented a ‘point in twister space’, a theory he was working on at the time. If I remember correctly it represented a point in six dimensions. Basically it was a picture of a torus – a doughnut with a hole in the middle. In looking at this picture and in light of the article referred to, ideas I had been working on came together in the realisation that the Universe could possibly be in the shape of a torus. As it turned out, I later discovered that the torus is one of the shapes for the Universe as predicted by Einstein.
My big problem was that in a torus universe, what with all cosmic bodies travelling around it in a spiral, passing through the eye of the torus on a regular basis, as the cosmic bodies travelled out from the eye there would be an acceleration to the expansion as the cosmic matter left the restricted space of the eye. While the torus universe theory fitted with many other ideas I had, this was the one flaw it had, for at the time it was claimed that the expansion was decelerating.
I was still trying to settle this ‘flaw’ in my theory, when it was announced that there was a flaw with the Big Bang Theory in so far as the expansion was accelerating.
So in answer to your request that I explain the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, there was no Big Bang. The Universe is a torus shape, and what is seen by theoretical science as a one off explosion from a singularity is in fact the emission from a restricted area of space of a steady continuous stream of what has been sucked in on the other side of the torus – the mother of all Black Holes.
However, this is not necessarily the full answer. As a theory the torus universe answers many questions that the Big Bang Theory does not. As far as I know it does not conflict with any present day science or observations. But the present day science and observations may be wrong, or may be improved upon. The torus universe may just be part of a far larger Cosmos. In fact for all we know we may just happen to be in an area of space where a particular eddy (cosmic wind) is blowing galactic bodies away from each other and the ‘wind’ may be getting stronger.
As I have said before, the Big Bang Theory is so full of holes that it is not even suitable for straining cabbage. When I refer to scientists being afraid to consider matters outside of their view, I am aware that where I have approached scientists to ask their view on my theory none have ever come back to me to rubbish it – they have instead chosen to ignore it.
Great fun all this speculation, but it doesn’t alter our relationship to the whole one iota.
================================
DT (to Nigel):
I will see if I can consolidate this somewhat...
ON EMPIRICISM
I don’t mean to speak for Rick, but when have we shown a willingness to accept that knowledge can be gained through means other than experiment and observation? I agree with everything Rick said, but what we are saying is that we do not discount the possibility that knowledge *could* be gained in other ways yet to be confirmed, but for now it seems that empiricism is the only one shown to be true so far.
Part of this, I think, comes from what seems to be a misunderstanding you have about empiricism. When you wrote, “However I do not agree that the Stoics of old used empirical methods only. They clearly held reason to be of a high order...” I was taken aback. Reason and formal logic as well, are part of the empirical approach. Your view of empiricism seems to be that if we register a “1” on the proton counter, that we can only say a 1 appeared on the proton counter, not that there was 1 proton. Empiricism is not so bare-bones as you are making it out to be, or else it would not have been capable of functioning to the amazingly successful degree it has in increasing human knowledge over the past several centuries.
Empiricism says that reliable facts must come through the senses through observation. But we can then take that raw data and formulate models by reasoning them out using logic. Non-empirical approaches would be those that seek to use reason and logic *alone* without gathering foundational data from observation, or seeking to use subjective experiences and feelings as foundational data. But both approaches necessarily employ reason and logic.
Everything the Stoics did seems to follow this empirical approach. To quote www.archaenia.com on Stoicism again...
“The fundamental proposition of the Stoic physics is that "nothing incorporeal exists". This materialism coheres with the sense-impression orientation of their doctrine of knowledge. Plato placed knowledge in thought, and reality, therefore, in the ideal form. The Stoics, however, place knowledge in physical sensation, and reality -- what is known by the senses -- is matter.”
“Sense-impression”, “physical sensation”, “known by the senses”. This is as close as one can get to the empirical approach prior to the enlightenment’s terminologies.
But there is a second point to all this, and that is that you suggest you used reason to reach your conclusions on the Divine Fire. Your use of reason was not a problem. But the fact that you start, not with empirical data as a source for your reason, but anecdotal events and intuitive notions as the source is what makes the approach non-empirical, and therefore also inconsistent with what seemed to be the Stoics approach to knowledge. As Sagan mentioned (actually quoted someone else I believe) in “The Demon Haunted World”, (paraphrasing) ‘The mystic and the scientist use the same methods of reason, the same logic, and the same means of formulating hypotheses. The only difference is that the scientist has a laboratory to test those hypotheses.”
ON THE SPIRITUAL
ON SCIENCE
If, on the other hand, you like to read a lot about science and you have a lot of ideas in your head about how you “think it is”, then you have a “guess”, or a “layman’s notion”. If you’re like me on this, then we can’t have scientific theories, any more than we can make “State of the Union” addresses or declare official state holidays.
ON HUMILITY
You say, “I also do not hold with the great conflagration idea” and also claim that several scientific theories are mythological. You have your own ideas about how things are, and I suppose we all do. But your willingness to completely disregard so much with so little basis seems to indicate to me that you have enormous misunderstandings at just what goes into science, the scientific process, and scientific theories. It’s like me sitting on my couch thinking I know more about how to run a power line than the National Electricians Association or something. I’m not any more a scientist myself, but I would ask that you look more into the scientific approach, scientific philosophy, empirical philosophy before making many of the blanket judgments you have.
On a separate note concerning humility, the empirical approach is perhaps the most humble approach we can take. It is the only one that acknowledges our imperfections and limitations as human beings – that says, “we don’t know it all – we have to look, and then we can begin to figure it out, however imperfectly and incompletely.”
I know you have read books on these subjects, as have many of us, but you seem to throw around beliefs on what happened billions of years ago, what the shape of the universe is, what widely held scientific theories are mythological, and so on with such bravado that I’m not even sure how to respond. I think a lot of your hostility towards science and empiricism comes out of misunderstanding it to be cold and heartless. It also seems that this may be leading you to reject those elements within Stoicism because of your love for what much of Stoicism offers, thus creating a conflict, or a cognitive dissonance of some type.
I respect your right to believe these things, but I hope you might look into some of these scientific concepts a little deeper before passing judgment. As for Stoicism, I think you are absolutely right about the different ways of looking at it. As Rick pointed out to me recently, when a person says they are a Christian, that can mean a lot of things. I would note that if you asked Pat Robertson, the Pope, St. Paul, Jesus, and George W. Bush about Christianity on the same level of detail we’ve been discussing Stoicism, you’d probably get very different answers. :)
================================
Nigel (to DT):
On Empiricism: I repeat the dictionary definition – ‘Empiricism - the theory or philosophy stating that knowledge can only be gained through experiment and observation’ (My applying bold to ‘only’)
No mention of logic and reasoning to arrive at implied conclusions. Experiments and observation only. Cold hard facts. It requires logic and reasoning to put the flesh on the bones. Hence ‘Empiricism Plus’. However as I also quoted, ‘The Sceptics showed how the senses are notoriously fallible and contradictory, and how the laws of reasoning lead by equally correct processes to opposite conclusions.’ I would add that reasoning and logic can also lead to true or false conclusions, or even partially true or false conclusions. Scientific observations are open to misunderstanding, and experiments can be influenced by the observer regardless of however many precautions one takes (a scientifically recognised problem).
Reasoning and logic are excellent tools, as is experimentation and observation. But they are not the be all to end all that many would have us believe. Consistency, surviving the test of time, universality etc are all other useful concepts that help to arrive at useful theories about how to live life etc.
You appear to accept that there is something that ‘governs’ – I believe that we are agreed in this, albeit that we do not agree as to its nature. But I have come across no science that has observed it or measured it. Again reason for me calling your philosophy Empiricism Plus, compared to the dictionary definition.
On Science: Lets start with ‘theory’. Back to the dictionary – ‘1. a series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspects of the world; 2. an idea or explanation which has not yet been proved, a conjecture; 3. the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject; 4. an ideal, hypothetical or abstract situation; 5 ideal, hypothetical or abstract reasoning. (again my capitalisation)
Nothing here about observation or experimentation, let alone theorising being the exclusive province of science. Nor is there anything here that suggest that a theory is fact or even a collection of facts. In fact i would sugest that the reverse applies.
‘it can only be backed up more or less’ – how about, 'it can be proved to be wrong, or at the very least, flawed'. Your faith is blinding you to how far out on a limb the theoretical scientists and mathematicians have taken us and how much they have indoctrinated people.
I will quote from Professor Hawkins’ ‘A Brief History of Time’.
We now have another example of a prediction of the Big Bang Theory being disproved by observation – the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating as the theory says it should – are the scientists going to stick another dubious theory on it like a plaster to try to stop it bleeding to death, holding to their ‘holy grail’ out of blind faith, or are they going to start to consider other ideas.
This is not egoism on my part. I also laugh at myself for having the audacity to believe that I can see what the experts don’t see. (However I have on a number of occasions done just that in other fields.) My ideas may be just so much rubbish. But if my ideas are such rubbish why haven’t those scientists I have approached with such not just slapped me down by showing me where I am wrong, instead of ignoring me. I would be happy to subject my theory to ‘peer revue’. But then the scientists of the day didn’t want to consider Einstein’s theories either, and he was more of a peer to them than I am ever likely to be. They just saw a clerk working in a patents office. Appearances can be deceiving – the cleverest of all people is not always right; the most stupid of people is not always wrong. Judge my theory on its merits, not on my lack of qualifications – and one of its merits is that it forecast and acceleration to the expansion of the universe which is more than the Big Bang Theory did.
But regardless of my ego, or my theory, it is clear from the words of Hawkins and Popper that the Big Bang Theory is not as secure as you make out.
I believed I had provided an example – the Big Bang Theory. The rest of your statement is nothing but an insulting put down suggesting that my opinion is of no worth whatsoever – are you claiming that your loyal acceptance of scientific theories as fact ‘trumps’ my position.
I believe that is a reasonable paraphrase of what you have said.
I have stated my case. You have stated your case. You are now trying to discredit me. So I assume you have now run out of any logical argument. I therefore would like to bring this line of discussion with you to a close. Instead of trying to discredit me, let us just agree to disagree.
You believe what you like about what the Stoics call the Divine Fire and ignore what the Stoics said about it. I will accept the logical conclusions of the Stoics of old describing the Cosmos as Zeus, Pronoia, Providence, Phusis, the Divine Fire etc. I will accept the logical implications of the Stoics of old describing the Cosmos as being alive, immortal, rational, intellectual, with a reasoning faculty that pervades everything. I will continue with my understanding that the Stoics saw that all matter, that is all that exists, is merely a manifestation of the finest ‘matter’ of all – Divine Fire. I will accept that the ruling principle, the consciousness of the Cosmos, is the Cosmos, and that we are all part of it - even you. :)
Now maybe there are other subjects relating to Stoicism that we can get onto.
================================
DT (to Nigel):
Empiricism is where you gather your raw data by empirical observations - but then, of course, you apply logic and reason to understanding that data. This is what empiricism is and this is what science does all the time. But that doesn't mean that "knowledge" is coming from some other source. The knowledge is still ultimately coming from those observations. This is what the definition you quote is trying to say. You are taking it in a very weird and strict sort of way that wasn't meant. So, what you're calling "empiricism plus" is empiricism. What you think of as "empiricism only" doesn't even exist - *no one* practices that, especially not scientists.
This is the very same standard applied to a respected laboratory that reports something extraordinary. It will not be accepted until other labs have repeated the results independently. As you said, it must be consistent and stand up to the test of time.
There is a layman's version of the word as people use it in common speech, and this relates to an "educated guess". But this is *NOT* the scientific definition of the word, or anything close to what it means scientifically. In fact, when #2 says "not yet been proved" this does not apply to the scientific version because it implies that any theory is ever "proved". In science, all theories are provisional. There are just different degrees to which they are backed up (until or unless they are overturned by other theories, as you mentioned).
The problem is that you are using the layman's version of the word in a scientific context, while addressing scientific matters. This is the source of the error, and why you're coming up with so many misunderstandings about science. A lot of people do this and if there were one thing that the public needs to understand about science it is this very common misconception. *PLEASE* return to my explanation of theory again, and find other sources if you must, but get this other idea of the word out of your thinking if you're going to be discussing science. "Theory" in the scientific context has *absolutely nothing* to do with level of certainty or whether it's been "proven" or not.
By using that metaphor, what I was saying was that the theory is what scientists seek to build. I was not, in *any* sense, implying that theories have some sort of impenetrable status once built. Some theories are very weakly supported, others more strongly supported. Everything Hawking said in your quote is exactly right and exactly where I stand.
There is nothing about the holy grail story that has to do with things being immune to challenge anyway. I think you just saw the word "holy" and went on with your science=religion line.
What I was saying is that there isn't a higher level that a theory gets to where it is "now proven". In fact, what I was saying was the very thing you are: which is that the theory is always provisional - it never gets to that "proven forever" level - the theory IS the highest level, and THAT is why creating a good theory is sought after by scientists (like the holy grail was sought after by the Arthurian Knights). So, in saying there is no higher level than the theory, I am not elevating theory to "fact" - I'm saying that there IS no "fact" level for science, for empiricists, or for any rational person.
1) Have you ever read Einstein's Relativity theory? It has a lot of math in it, and is based on what observations had been made at the time (even though further observation would be required to back up the new claims in it).
2) What empirical tests can be performed to prove your theory? More importantly, what set of observations would be such that, if they were to happen, your theory would be disproved? A theory must be capable, in principle, of being DISproved before it is considered valid. If there is nothing that can measured or observed that could, even in principle, ever disprove the theory, then it is illegitimate.
3) How much math does your "theory" have? Scientists can only peer review your work if you provide an outline of the experiments you used to reach your conclusions, so they can repeat them and see if they reach the same results. They need specific figures and facts to begin. This doesn't mean reason and logic aren't used - but it does mean they need a starting place with empirical data they can verify.
Scientists do not peer review "laymen's speculation" - it's simply not part of their job description. That's because scientists deal with what we can determine factually about our physical universe.
You said to Jan that she 'saw an original Stoicism that was twisted by later Stoics' and you rather saw it as an evolving continuum. I would suggest a third take, which is that Stoicism was slightly different things to different people - including differences between the major Stoic figures.
My mother, who is a Protestant* doesn't consider Catholics to be "real Christians". Regardless, if there is room for Pat Robertson and the Pope in Christianity, then there seems to be room for the "conscious” and “non/semi conscious" denominations within Stoicism. :)
[*Actually she calls herself a "non denominational Christian" and would probably not say she is a Protestant. This is part of a nationwide movement which seeks to cast off differences between Christian denominations, but which is specifically non-Catholic in content and Protestant in its beliefs nonetheless.]
This is a conversation that took place over the International Stoic Forum email list, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ in June of 2005. The topic was Started by Nigel Glassborow and was titled, "Beyond Empiricism". It took place after another conversation on whether or not the Divine Fire concept in Stoicism was a conscious being capable of reason, as opposed to something which is based on reason but not conscious itself. Therefore, the discussion occasionally drifts into caveats on this. But primarily, it is about empiricism and the scientific approach. The content has been edited for typos, format, and readability.
The participants include Nigel Glassborow (Nigel, blue text), Dr. Keith Seddon (Keith, orange text), DT Strain (DT, black text), Rick Bamford (Rick, green text), and Dr. Jan Garrett (Jan, violet text).
================================
Nigel (to all):
I have been involved in many debates (discussions) on this forum over the understanding of the nature of the Divine Fire. I have had great difficulty in understanding the view point of those who appear to deny any scope for the Divine Fire to be ‘conscious’ – that is that it is reasoning and has a will.
I have seen it as a debate over what Stoicism views to be the nature of an aspect of the Cosmos that the Stoics of old called the Divine Fire, God or Zeus amongst many other names.
The debate has at times got heated, partly because I have been confused at the denial of the Stoic view of the Divine Fire even though we are discussing such on a site dedicated to Stoicism. I now realise that while I have been discussing the Stoic view, and through such debate hoping to gain greater insight into the Stoic understanding of the Divine Fire, in fact most of those arguing against me are not discussing the Stoic view point but their own – see the more recent references to empirical materialism and transcendence.
To add to this it has become obvious that there is a miss-match to the debate. I am talking about ‘apples’, others are talking about ‘pears’.
I am talking about living this life as a spark of the Divine Fire. Others appear to be talking about the mechanics behind what we experience. I am talking about the ‘driver’; they are talking about the ‘car’. I am interested in where the ‘driver’ is taking us; they appear to be more interested in the make and model of the ‘car’.
I now see that there are those who are comfortable to see only what science sees, and want to see no further. All the scientific talk, including the talk of cause and effect, is simply discussing what is being manifested in the flow of existence. I, like the Stoics of old, have been discussing what manifests not only that which obeys the laws of science and nature but manifests the very laws themselves.
The Stoics of old looked at the order in the universe (the laws of cause and effect etc) and saw within all of this the reasoning faculty of the living Cosmos – the Divine Fire. To the Stoics there are two principles to what makes up the Cosmos as a whole. The passive principle is matter (energy) that does nothing on its own – not even obey the laws of cause and effect. Only by ‘adding’ the active principle is matter seen to operate in a ‘sensible’ manner.
Basically, without the active principle nothing would exist. The Stoics clearly saw that while the passive principle and the active principle are merely different aspects of a oneness, unless there is at least these two aspects there would be nothing, for the passive cannot be without the active, and the active cannot be without the passive. However much intellectuals might try to explain how things evolved to their present state as we see it, in finding possible explanations for how the processes involved work, they do not explain how and why the ‘laws’ came into being, and what sustains them.
All the modern theories in the world that describe individual aspects of existence that we see manifested around us do not even begin to contemplate that which does the manifesting for they are limited by their very sphere of investigation. Science is not up to the job when it comes to understanding itself in relation to that which manifests that which it studies. It is only capable of studying that which has been manifested. It cannot study that which caused the manifestation, so it is not in a position to comment on the nature of such, and it is especially not equipped with any knowledge, evidence or observation that allows it to deny the existence of that which causes things to manifest. Any such denial is based solely on human-centric egotism – a false belief that many scientist have, that of believing that their minds are superior to anything else. They are afraid to consider the fact that there is something that is superior to them, something that they cannot measure, weigh or dissect. In their desperation to deny ‘God’ they sacrifice all their supposed scientific principle and cling to ideological bunkum, while denying the wisdom of the ages.
I do not see it as sensible to follow the egotism of many of the scientists. Basically being an ‘empirical materialist’ means that one is going to ignore anything in life that cannot be experimented on or cannot be observed. The mistake in seeing such empiricism as being akin to Stoicism is that the Stoics saw everything as being aspects of the basic material that is the Cosmos, so being classed as materialists, but where they part company from the empiricist is that the Stoics see this matter as being imbued with ‘spirit’. The empiricist’s accusation that such is transcendent is simply an admission that it is beyond the sphere that they are willing to consider. It is beyond their incomplete picture of the Cosmos. To the Stoic the Divine Fire is not transcendent for it certainly is not ‘beyond’ in any sense of the word. It is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us.
The ’fuzziness’ recently referred to is not to be found in Stoicism, but it is to be observed within scientific observation and theory where ‘at a point matter seems to disintegrate into a fuzzy nothingness’ (using words I read in a paper by a scientist). So it is empiricism that experiences fuzziness, while Stoicism sees no such fuzziness. There is absolute clarity. There is the Divine Fire. There is an active principle to the Cosmos as a whole, a oneness, a reasoning faculty, an intelligence, a will – all belonging to the living Cosmos.
As to if any of the words we use describe exactly the same thing when applied to a human being as they do when applied to the Cosmos as a whole, or convey a full understanding of what we are trying to describe, I very much doubt. The lack of ability of a word to convey what is being described in no way diminishes that which is being described. I can know with absolute clarity the purpose of a chair, without being able to describe every aspect of it. So also there is an obvious common sense understanding by any reasonable person as to what concepts are being considered when we Stoics talk of the Cosmos as living and having a reasoning faculty, intelligence and a will etc. The concept of life when applied to the Cosmos may be different than the concept of life when applied to creatures and such like on this planet, but the use of the word ‘living’ gives an understanding of what is being suggested.
We Stoics, in part, use common perceptions both to understand and to describe various aspects of existence and aspects of the Cosmos. An overview of empirical studies is just another part of what is needed to arrive at any real understanding. But to limit ourselves to the output of empirical studies only would be illogical and irrational. To a Stoic, such would show a lack of wisdom.
================================
Keith (to DT):
DT: "I have never meant to directly deny that the Divine Fire is Conscious. I
have so far only meant to question whether or not believing that it IS
Conscious, is a *part of* the Stoic philosophy. ... "Is there anything in the
historic literature on Stoicism that suggests that the belief of the Divine Fire
being a Conscious entity, is a central part of Stoicism-proper?"
I am inclined to think that the Stoics understood the divine fire to be conscious, or rather, self-conscious, as a being who has an experience of things, can think about things and who undertakes actions as an agent -- as human beings do. If the souls of human beings are understood to be fragments of Zeus, the divine fire than pervades the cosmos, and *we* are self-conscious, it seems hard to make sense of the idea that Zeus is not conscious of what I am conscious of, and is not conscious of what everyone throughout the course of history was/is/will be conscious of. At the very least, He must be conscious of that...
Diogenes Laertius (7.147 = LS 54A) says that god is an animal that has a commanding-faculty (hegemonikon); Cicero in The Nature of the Gods (1.39 = LS 54B) says that god is the world's commanding-faculty. The commanding-faculty is the locus of self-conscious experience, of rational thought, and the power of agency. Just as the soul of a human being is conceived as the rational commanding-faculty of a person, so Zeus is conceived as the rational commanding-faculty of the whole universe.
I don't see how it can make any sense to discuss Zeus in these terms without holding that He is self-conscious.
The Stoics also talk of Zeus being provident, and again, that doesn't seem to make any sense unless He intends to bring about the history of the world just as it happens, as a self-conscious agent.
DT: "It seems to me ... that they saw the order in the universe as ... theI think this is right. If we go around someone's house and see everything ordered just so, all the things ready to prepare a meal, all the books and papers ready for preparing a lecture, or whatever, we would understand that what we are seeing are the signs of intentional action, planning and agency. The Stoics say that we can look around the world and make the very same observation about Zeus.
Divine Fire itself."
================================
DT (to Nigel):
Thanks for this. Your letter here seems to really give me a clear picture of the points we're dealing with, and gets to the heart of your conceptions of them.
Nigel: "I have been involved in many debates (discussions) on this forumAs for myself. I have never meant to directly deny that the Divine Fire is Conscious. I think it might be to some extent, but am uncertain. But whether or not the Divine Fire is Conscious is not actually a subject we have even begun to delve into directly.
over the understanding of the nature of the Divine Fire. I have had great
difficulty in understanding the view point of those who appear to deny any scope
for the Divine Fire to be 'conscious' - that is that it is reasoning and has a
will."
Instead, I have so far only meant to question whether or not believing that it IS Conscious, is a *part of* the Stoic philosophy. And, even then, I am not claiming that it isn't - I honestly am trying to find out. In the process of finding that out, however, I must bring up points that have come from my readings to see how they relate to what you're saying, and see if there is a way to resolve what seem to be conflicts between them.
I know that you are claiming, specifically, that a belief in the Consciousness of the Divine Fire is part of the Stoic philosophy-proper, but nothing you have said or presented so far from the literature shows that it is. I fully expect there may be some evidence that this is part of the Stoic philosophy, which we may yet have someone present to us though. When I say I want to see this, I am not being facetious or patronizing - I genuinely want to know if there is some reference to classic writings that show they believed the Divine Fire was, not just imbued with Reason or operating according to Reason, but actually capable of Conscious reasoning itself, which I honestly don't know.
In fact, I'm a bit frustrated that despite my pleas, including one personally-directed request, I have yet to see anyone except you and one other person weigh in on this important issue. I know we have several scholars here who know far more than I, but none seem willing to address the question: "Is there anything in the historic literature on Stoicism that suggests that the belief of the Divine Fire being a Conscious entity, is a central part of Stoicism-proper?" I seek two things: A response on this from others on this list, and a response from you showing specifically this in particular historic writings.
Nigel: "I now realise that while I have been discussing the Stoic view, and through such debate hoping to gain greater insight into the Stoic understanding of the Divine Fire, in fact most of those arguing against me are not discussing the Stoic view point but their own - see the more recent references to empirical materialism and transcendence."You may be right. If so, I want to learn if this is the case. But it seems to me that what I'm saying *is* the Stoic view, as best as I can determine from what I've read (which isn't everything, by far). Your insistence that the Divine Fire be thought of as a Conscious being seems as though it might be superfluous to those writings at this point, at least until I see any that show otherwise.
Nigel: "To add to this it has become obvious that there is a miss-match to the debate. I am talking about 'apples', others are talking about 'pears'.The Stoics of old discussed this? From what I've read, it seems that they spoke specifically of the "laws of science and nature" and of cause and effect, and that this is exactly what even Heraclitus addresses when describing it as the Divine Fire (see below). Didn't the early Stoics believe that these laws had always been, and that the universe was an eternal, cyclical, series of conflagrations? If so, then where do they address something other than the C&E and interaction of elements and make claims about something other, which *created* the passive and active/creative?
[...]
I now see that there are those who are comfortable to see only what science sees, and want to see no further. All the scientific talk, including the talk of cause and effect, is simply discussing what is being manifested in the flow of existence. I, like the Stoics of old, have been discussing what manifests not only that which obeys the laws of science and nature but manifests the very laws themselves."
Nigel: "The Stoics of old looked at the order in the universe (the laws of cause and effect etc) and saw within all of this the reasoning faculty of the living Cosmos - the Divine Fire."Correct me if I'm wrong, but here you seem to be thinking that they looked at the order of the universe as a 'clue' or an indication that a Fire of Reason lay behind it. To the contrary, I seems to me instead that they saw the order in the universe as, not a clue - but as the Divine Fire *itself*.
This seems like one of the more original things about Stoicism - otherwise, if its just that they saw an orderly universe and expected that, because of that order, a God did it, then they are no different than the many other monotheistic religions, only using different terms for things.
Nigel: "To the Stoics there are two principles to what makes up the Cosmos as a whole. The passive principle is matter (energy) that does nothing on its own - not even obey the laws of cause and effect. Only by 'adding' the active principle is matter seen to operate in a 'sensible' manner."You put energy in parenthesis after matter, but I think the closer equivalence to what they were thinking by our terms today may have been that matter was the passive and energy the active - both part of one whole (mass-energy).
I see now that you are thinking of mass-energy as the passive, and then this other thing of some sort as the active. You may be right but this was not the understanding I had from my reading. If you could provide more on your thinking of this it would be appreciated.
Nigel: "[science] cannot study that which caused the manifestation, so it is not in a position to comment on the nature of such, and it is especially not equipped with any knowledge, evidence or observation that allows it to deny the existence of that which causes things to manifest."I hear what you're saying about not being able to answer the ultimate question of "why is any of this here in the first place". You are right that science/empirical measurement cannot address that issue. But it seems to me that science is primarily in the business of defining cause-effect relationships within this universe. More central to our subject: it also seems that *this* was the primary line of investigation that the Stoics employed when speaking of their physics, and that this is what their thoughts on the Logos and the Divine Fire are based on - or so it seems to me at the moment.
Nigel: "The mistake in seeing such empiricism as being akin to Stoicism is that the Stoics saw everything as being aspects of the basic material that is the Cosmos, so being classed as materialists, but where they part company from the empiricist is that the Stoics see this matter as being imbued with 'spirit'."I think this point you make here is really central to our subject and how we are each seeing it. This one point may be the most relevant and important point in your entire message.
To make sure I'm understanding you, let me rephrase what I think you're saying here and you can tell me if I get it or if I'm off base. You seem to be saying that the Stoics were only classed as materialists because they saw everything as being part of the Cosmos, but nevertheless saw matter as being imbued with 'spirit'.
Is the 'spirit' material or not? On this point I'm not sure what you'd say. You are either suggesting that Stoics believe the 'spirit' which imbued the matter was material itself, or it was immaterial. Let us look at these two options...
OPTION 1: Spirit is immaterial:
If this were the case, then the Stoics simply thinking of all of it as part of the Cosmos would not be enough for them to be classed as materialists, for nearly anyone could think that. Christians and many other modern perspectives view matter as material and imbued with immaterial spirit, yet consider it all part of existence. There would be little difference between Stoics and any of the other dualists if this were the case. Stoics would simply be faith-based dualists like so many other religions. Yet, that is not the overall impression I get from what I read and what other Stoics seem to be saying. I could very well be wrong about that impression though.
You say, "To the Stoic the Divine Fire is not transcendent for it certainly is not 'beyond' in any sense of the word. It is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us." But Christians believe this very thing about the Holy Spirit, yet it would be quite a stretch to consider them materialists.
OPTION 2: Spirit is material:
If this were the case, then we could call the Stoics Monists and Materialists (which they *are* called). But it would also mean that the spirit must consist of material properties, which can be measured. This would be akin to things like electrical charge, gravity, magnetism, and so on (and may actually be what they meant by the "active"). In any case, this sort of 'spirit' would be within the realm of empirical study, and wouldn't seem to be of the nature you speak.
I suspect your position may be a somewhat different option, or perhaps another take on one of these options which I have yet to realize, so I will carefully read your response.
By contrast, it seems to me that what the Stoics were talking about, was that there is an active and a passive component to the material world (mass = passive, energy = active), and that all of this interacted according to cause and effect. Indeed, this C&E seems to be very reason the Stoics were fatalists. And, that all of this fatalistic, deterministic, material soup of interaction by C&E was the Cosmos/Nature. And this Nature operated according to Reason and Logos, and the Divine Fire was a description of this tumultuous act of continual creation. Everything I've read of Heraclitus on the Divine Fire seems to indicate to me this is what he was talking about. Consider the following description of Heraclitus' concept, from http://www.archaeonia.com ...
"As fire is the primary form of reality, the process of combustion is the key both to human life and to that of the world. It is a process that never rests; for a flame must always be fed by fresh exhalations as fuel, and it is always turning into vapor or smoke. The steadiness of the flame depends on the 'measures' of fuel kindled and the 'measures' of fire extinguished in smoke remaining constant. Now the world is 'an everliving fire' (fr. 20), and therefore there will be an unceasing process of eternal flux (panta pei)."
This sounds remarkably like the strictly physical and empirical processes of nature as we understand them today. They continue...
"For Hereclitus, everything is in this process of flux, and nothing therefore, not even the world in its momentary form, nor the gods themselves, can escape final destruction. That will apply to the world at large (macrocosm) and also to the soul of humans (microcosm). Concerning the larger world, 'You cannot step twice into the same river' (fr. 41); concerning the human soul, it is just as true that 'we are and are not' at any given moment. As fire changes continually into water and then into earth, so earth changes back to water and water again to fire. The world, therefore, arose from fire, and in alternating periods is resolved again into fire, to form itself anew out of this element. The division of unified things into a multiplicity of opposing phenomena is "the way downwards," and is the consequence of a war and a strife. Harmony and peace lead back to unity by "the way upwards." Nature is constantly dividing and uniting herself, so that the multiplicity of opposites does not destroy the unity of the whole."
This sounds to me like complex systems theory. His talk of fire into earth, water, etc. all seems like, if one were challenged to describe modern scientific and empirical theory on nature using only the terminologies and conceptions of ancient Greece, then this would be as close to it as one could possibly come.
It seems to me, not only that the Stoics were materialists, but that they employed what we would call an empirical approach. Two things may seem to cloud this impression, however.
For one, the scientific revolution of the enlightenment had yet to show that "proof" could not come through logical argument alone, but had to be based on observation. Lacking this discovery, the ancients often sought to "prove" things through rational argument alone. Nevertheless, it was apparent that their approach was not one of faith, so much as one of requiring people to back up their claims with logical proofs, with premises that at their root, could be determined through the five senses. In other words, it seemed obvious that, had they known of the standards of observation developed in the enlightenment, they would have taken this route as being in the spirit of their methodology, rather than employing faith into their logic.
A second thing that clouds our ability to distill the essence of Stoicism is that, although they employed similar methods as the materialists of today, they arrived at different conclusions, which included some off-base physics. But when one follows the line of thinking they used in reaching these conclusions, it becomes clear that the difference in conclusions is not due to a difference of values or of approach, but simply due to a difference of available data about the universe. When one looks at their methodology, approach to knowledge, and value system for determining truth, it seems pretty likely that had the ancient Stoics lived today, then they would have been empiricists with some different conclusions in their physics. But, amazingly, because their conceptions were generally on target, these differences would not have altered the fundamental foundational principles that support Stoic ethics - which is why Stoicism is so relevant today.
In short, you have the three divisions of Stoic thought: logic, physics, and ethics. The logic is pretty much the same (with only a bit of a difference in standard thanks to the enlightenment), but when you apply that logic to today's greater collection of raw information about the universe, you get a slightly different physics. Nevertheless, this physics still retains all of the essential principles which support Stoic ethics just as the earlier renditions of Stoic physics did.
That is the "new Stoicism" of today's time. When I look at what you are saying, there seem to be two issues in play. First, the conclusions you are suggesting seem to only hold up when operating before the advances of the enlightenment, and before the collection of basic facts about our universe that proceeded the ancient Greeks. But a *second* issue, completely separate, is whether or not even the ancients believed that the Divine Fire was a conscious entity with a will and an intellect that experienced qualia. Here, even when we only consider the classic, original version of Stoicism, I'm not certain that this was the case - but I am open to writings which show otherwise.
Nigel: "Basically, without the active principle nothing would exist. The Stoics clearly saw that while the passive principle and the active principle are merely different aspects of a oneness, unless there is at least these two aspects there would be nothing, for the passive cannot be without the active, and the active cannot be without the passive. However much intellectuals might try to explain how things evolved to their present state as we see it, in finding possible explanations for how the processes involved work, they do not explain how and why the 'laws' came into being, and what sustains them."To the contrary, I have recently discovered this, in the Fragments of Heraclitus...
Fragment 30, Clement Strom. V, 104, 1. "This world [the same of all] didI think this jives with the notion of existence simply existing, and the Divine Fire is *part of* that grand flux, the creative side of opposite forces of creation and destruction *within* the universe. Not the author of the universe, existence, or laws itself, but rather, the Divine Fire *IS* the set of laws and action between components within the universe.
none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everliving
fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures."
The more I read into this, the more convinced I become that Heraclitus, and seemingly Zeno perhaps, were speaking of something physics-related and functional-natural in structure, more akin to modern complexity and chaos theory (see the above as well as the quote of material on Heraclitus in my previous email to you).
But the later Stoics such as Chryssipus and Seneca seemed to really treat the Divine Fire as a more personified standard deity-figure of some sort, and sound more like your take - at least, according to my meager readings thus far.
And (if memory serves) Marcus Aurellius, which I *have* read, seems to back off from both positions, and simply focus on the ethics and applied living, leaving the physics as vague references to gods/Logos in a general sort of way that could be metaphorical or not, as if taken for granted or as if it didn't matter to him as much.
Perhaps you could apply your concept of the different "Stoa" to this evolution?
================================
Rick (to Nigel):
Hi Nigel. Apologies for the lengthy response, but I have contributed very little lately, so I feel I should make up for lost time. :)
Nigel said: "I have had great difficulty in understanding the view point of those who appear to deny any scope for the Divine Fire to be 'conscious' - that is that it is reasoning and has a will."Speaking for myself (although I suspect my opinion is more or less representative of my empiricist brethren), I do not deny the possibility of what you say about this Divine Fire. Because I cannot prove it does not exist, I do not say "It does not exist" but rather I say "While I cannot prove it does not exist, I see no credible evidence that it does exist, and therefore I shall give it little regard until credible evidence arises." I hold this attitude towards ALL purported numinous phenomenon that are beyond the scope of careful and critical examination (i.e. science); such as gods, angels, demons, heavens, hells, afterlife, reincarnation, ESP, UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and compassionate conservatism.
Although there are many ways to delineate diametric personality types, I think two of them are empirical personalities and spiritual personalities. Empirical personalities run the gamut from the open-minded style I described for myself above, to the close-minded adamant atheist. Likewise, spiritual personalities run the gamut from the very lucid type (I would consider you to be in this category) to the close-minded religious fundamentalist. I do not consider either personality type to be wrong or bad, as long as they are moderate and not taken to their extremes. It's sort of like the old "Is the glass half full or half empty" analogy. We're all looking at the same objective glass, we just look at it from different subjective viewpoints.
For example, although I do not personally believe in gods, I do not (well, I no longer) chastise those who do. If someone makes a claim that something exists and which cannot be proven by science not to exist, then I have no problem with that, PROVIDED they do not hold out their belief as objective fact and try to force it upon others, as many religious and political groups try to do. However, if someone makes a claim that science can disprove, such as the idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then they will hear an argument from me and my ilk, because there is plenty of evidence against their viewpoint.
Thus, I personally believe a positivist viewpoint is the most prudent, and that is why I stick with it. By positivist, I mean that only those aspects of reality/universe that can be impartially measured and universally experienced by anyone and everyone should be considered 'objective fact' and everything else should be considered 'subjective opinion.' This is NOT a value judgment that subjective opinions are somehow inferior to objective facts. Indeed, I have some subjective opinions that I feel are more important (to me) than some objective facts. All I'm saying is that objective facts, as I have just described them, can serve as a (reasonably*) solid foundation of knowledge, because since they are measurable, they can stand independent of subjective opinions (value judgments) about them.
*I say reasonably, because scientific knowledge is always changing as older, erroneous ways of understanding reality are supplanted by better, more correct ways. While this may give a superficial appearance of fragility, it is the best way to get to truth, so in the long run, it is the firmest footing for knowledge.
For example, you claim to have direct experience of the Divine Fire, so it is very real to you, just as the many incarnations of various gods are very real to traditional theists. However, there are many people like myself who have no direct experience of divinity of any sort. We have only the word of theists that such things exist. So who is right? Either the theists are correct and non-theists are somehow blind to the obvious, OR non-theists are correct and theists are seeing an illusion that isn't there. How can we know which is right? Neither position can be measured and independently verified, so neither position can therefore be honestly called a fact. Such things must therefore be considered opinions. Again, this does not mean that opinions are less important than facts, it is only a statement that opinions are not universally experience-able, and therefore cannot be used as a universal foundation of knowledge for all humanity. At best, opinions can only be used as a foundation of knowledge for subsets of humanity that believe in them (religions, philosophies, political groups, etc.).
Nigel: " I am talking about the 'driver'; they are talking about the 'car'."Some of us do not see, and therefore do not believe in, a 'driver', therefore we have little to say on the matter, other than that we do not see it and therefore do not believe in it. But the honest among us will not deny that there might be a driver, even if we cannot see it or know anything about it.
Nigel: "I am interested in where the 'driver' is taking us;"Suit yourself. As for me, I am interested in where we can take ourselves.
Nigel: "I now see that there are those who are comfortable to see only what science sees, and want to see no further."I am happy to look further than science can. I know science has its limits. Not everything is measurable. My distinction is not to say that those things beyond the reach of science are worthless, but to say that they are opinion only.
Nigel: "I, like the Stoics of old, have been discussing what manifests not only that which obeys the laws of science and nature but manifests the very laws themselves."But you have no way to show or prove to others, other than with your word, that what you believe to be the way the laws manifest themselves is true/correct. Thus, your beliefs in such matters can never be more than an opinion, no matter how obvious and iron-clad real it may seem to you, or even if a sizable hunk of humanity agrees with you.
Nigel: "Science is not up to the job when it comes to understanding itself in relation to that which manifests that which it studies."Agreed, science has its limits. All I am arguing is that science is the only universal way that we, all of humanity, can use to get our facts about reality straight, even if that is limited to a subset of the total reality that exists. If you know of a method, other than science, that can convince any reasonable/sane/open-minded person of the truth of a particular thing, regardless of that person's preconceived biases, then I would be very interested to learn about it.
Nigel: "It [science] cannot study that which caused the manifestation, so it is not in a position to comment on the nature of such…"Perhaps it isn't. But YOU are? Based on what?
Nigel: "…and it [science] is especially not equipped with any knowledge, evidence or observation that allows it to deny the existence of that which causes things to manifest."Agreed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But then again, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike to impartial eyes.
Nigel: "Any such denial is based solely on human-centric egotism"Agreed. But so is insisting that something exists when one cannot prove it. The only totally egoless position with regard to non- provable phenomena is a prudent agnosticism. But the human ego is strong, and few people find agnosticism to be emotionally satisfying, so we tend to pick sides.
Nigel: "I do not see it as sensible to follow the egotism of many of the scientists"I do not see it as sensible to follow the egotism of many of the theists and mystics. To each their own! :)
Nigel: " Basically being an 'empirical materialist' means that one is going to ignore anything in life that cannot be experimented on or cannot be observed."'Ignore' is not the right word. 'Not take seriously until evidence arises' is better.
Nigel: "They [scientists] are afraid to consider the fact that there is something that is superior to them, something that they cannot measure, weigh"I think you are confusing fear with healthy skepticism. I doubt many scientists are 'afraid' of what is real, and don't deem it either superior or inferior to themselves. They just want to understand it. I think the scientific way is the most prudent way to look at the universe… a vibrant wonder about what is 'out there' and what makes it all tick, but a wonder salted with a healthy skepticism, so as to better avoid the many well meaning but misplaced mistakes that humans have made over the centuries about the nature of reality.
Nigel: " The empiricist's accusation that such is transcendent is simply an admission that it is beyond the sphere that they are willing to consider. It is beyond their incomplete picture of the Cosmos."Admittedly incomplete, yes, ….but solid! Better a cottage built of bricks than a palace of straw.
Nigel: "It [Divine Fire] is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us."If you say so. I don't see it. When you can show me instead of just tell me about it, I will take it seriously. Again, I do not deny the possibility that it exists, but I'm not going to pay much attention to something I can't detect. You see reality with your rules, I see it with mine. What we believe is not important. How we behave, now THAT is important! I think how to behave is more the point of Stoicism than what to believe.
Nigel: "So it is empiricism that experiences fuzziness, while Stoicism sees no such fuzziness. There is absolute clarity."So you see everything with absolute clarity, eh? Okay, so why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? How does gravity work? What causes inertia? If you can see with absolute clarity, then you can answer questions like these.
Empiricism (science) rolls up its sleeves, puts on its spectacles, and tries to read the fine print of reality. That's why things get fuzzy for the scientist. Sometimes the print is too small to read. Sometimes it is in a language we haven't yet deciphered.
Every religion has made blanket statements similar to yours… that they "see with absolute clarity." Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. But what they each "see" with such clarity is all different from each other… how can that be, if they see the truth so clearly? It looks to me like they're all judging the book of nature by its cover. Or worse yet, they put a cover on it that suits them. Science opens the book and reads it, as best it can, even if it cannot see all the pages, or understand all the words.
Nigel: "But to limit ourselves to the output of empirical studies only would be illogical and irrational."Agreed, but I as I have tried to convey, most scientists don't limit themselves to only empirical studies. We just use it as a solid foundation upon which to build theories of what might be.
================================
Jan (to all):
I agree mostly with what Keith says here about the probability that the classical Stoics regarded Zeus as conscious. What is interesting is that attributing to them a willingness to draw this conclusion is to attribute to them the use of reasoning by analogy. Reasoning by analogy is recognized nowadays as a form of inductive reasoning, a form of empirical reasoning. I think that the Stoics often use this type of reasoning, or at least it frames the way they develop their own concepts. The question I have is whether they consciously recognized, as an acceptable form of reasoning, arguments from analogy. I have looked in various standard collections of logical and epistemological fragments from the Stoics for direct statements of such a recognition but have not yet found any. If anybody has been able to do so, please let us know.
It is curious that the Stoics were able to say as much as they did about the nature of Zeus and how he operates without explicitly referring to his consciousness or experience. This suggests to me that many of them were aware of the skeptical challenges that they were likely to receive if they advanced a direct claim that Zeus was conscious on the basis of what skeptics would have said was weak analogical reasoning.
As an aside, I note that when Plato in his Laws tries to prove the existence of gods, he argues that the heavenly bodies (planets, sun, stars) are gods. He claims that the regularity of their movement is an indication that they are governed by intelligence. He does not say that they are conscious, only that they are intelligent. Their providential nature is demonstrated not by any direct awareness we have of their minds but by the way they structure a material world that is beneficial for humankind.
================================
DT (to Jan):
Thanks for the input Jan...
Jan: "Reasoning by analogy is recognized nowadays as a form of inductive reasoning, a form of empirical reasoning."Indeed. This is part of what I meant when I said that they used methods, values, and an overall approach that would be consistent with empiricists today, although they simply had a smaller data set from which to work and therefore came to *some* different conclusions.
Jan: "I think that the Stoics often use this type of reasoning, or at least it frames the way they develop their own concepts. The question I have is whether they consciously recognized, as an acceptable form of reasoning, arguments from analogy."It seems to me to be rampant throughout all ancient philosophy, definitely including Socrates, as presented by Plato. It would be hard for me to think that they *didn't* find analogy a suitable means of forming a logical "proofs".
Jan: "I have looked in various standard collections of logical and epistemological fragments from the Stoics for direct statements of such a recognition but have not yet found any."When the Stoics say that the Divine Fire is as to the universe as the soul is to the body, this seems to me more than an attempt to illustrate the point, but an implied line of argument based on analogy - but maybe I'm underestimating them. I look forward to hearing if anyone finds anything more on this as well. :)
Jan: "It is curious that the Stoics were able to say as much as they did about the nature of Zeus and how he operates without explicitly referring to his consciousness or experience."I also found this very strange. This is why I speculated that perhaps the very concept of consciousness, qualia, and cognition that we approach the "soul/mind" from today doesn't exactly match up to their conception. Perhaps so much so, that they didn't even think it a matter to address?
Jan: "As an aside, I note that when Plato in his Laws tries to prove the existence of gods, he argues that the heavenly bodies (planets, sun, stars) are gods. He claims that the regularity of their movement is an indication that they are governed by intelligence. He does not say that they are conscious, only that they are intelligent. Their providential nature is demonstrated not by any direct awareness we have of their minds but by the way they structure a material world that is beneficial for humankind."And here again we have an example of an ancient Greek philosopher looking at the world in a very functional/physics-based way (perhaps what we might call "secular" today). Maybe the situation was much like today, where the philosophers (scientists of their time) tended to view the world in a scientific manner, and used imagery of gods and to illustrate a point poetically (as Stephen Hawking does). And, perhaps it was the non-philosophers, commoners, and politicians who tended more often to take the metaphors literally and as personifications. Being emotionally attached to these personified conceptions, the populace may have created even more political, social, and legal pressure on the philosophers to maintain their godly metaphors so as to keep clear of the hemlock.
That's probably too stark to be 100% true. No doubt many of them did believe in gods, but how person-like those gods were to them, seem to be variable, with perhaps an overall average of "less person-like" among the philosophers than among the general population.
================================
Nigel (to DT):
DT says, ‘If so, then where do they address something other than the C&E and interaction of elements and make claims about something other, which *created* the passive and active/creative?’I hope the capitalisation is explanation enough. When I first wrote my posting I used the word ‘behind’ and then realised this was not what I meant so altered it to ‘within’
There is no ‘something other’, nor did it create the passive and active principles, for these are merely aspects of It.
I said, ‘The Stoics of old looked at the order in the universe (the laws of cause and effect etc) and saw within all of this the reasoning faculty of the living Cosmos - the Divine Fire.’
DT replied, ‘Correct me if I'm wrong, but here you seem to be thinking that they looked at the order of the universe as a 'clue' or an indication that a Fire of Reason lay behind it.’
DT says, ‘You put energy in parenthesis after matter, but I think the closer equivalence to what they were thinking by our terms today may have been that matter was the passive and energy the active - both part of one whole (mass-energy).The Stoics of old talked of ‘matter’ and included the Divine Fire as being matter. I am merely saying that I believe that the ‘material’ that is that which manifests all matter, forces, individualisations etc, is akin to what we now call energy. This is a singular state of being, but like many things, Stoics see two aspects to it. It is ‘material’ in nature, but it is ‘material that thinks’, for without its capability to ‘reason’ it would not be able to manifest the universe as we see it. Water may be seen to be able to flow and also to be wet at the same time, but we do not see these qualities as being separate from the water. So the Cosmos is a oneness that has both passive and active principles, but neither principle is separate from the Cosmos. Neither principle is ‘behind’ the Cosmos. Neither principle is ‘something other’. It is just that when we talk of the Cosmos from the point of view of the active principle we tend to refer to the Cosmos as the Divine Fire, or even as Zeus.
I see now that you are thinking of mass-energy as the passive, and then this other thing of some sort as the active. You may be right but this was not the understanding I had from my reading. If you could provide more on your thinking of this it would be appreciated.’
DT says, ‘You seem to be saying that the Stoics were only classed as materialists because they saw everything as being part of the Cosmos, but nevertheless saw matter as being imbued with 'spirit'.’Correct. I believe that this is the Stoic line in a nutshell.
DT says, ‘Is the 'spirit' material or not? On this point I'm not sure what you'd say. You are either suggesting that Stoics believe the 'spirit' which imbued the matter was material itself, or it was immaterial.’Is the wetness of water material or is it immaterial? Is the quality of the flowability of water material of immaterial? The ‘spirit’ is a quality of the ‘material’ that is the Cosmos, so it is ‘material’. By the Stoic high teaching, all is ‘solid’, even thought.
DT says, ‘OPTION 2: Spirit is material:…. would also mean that the spirit must consist of material properties, which can be measured.’I’m not sure if I can say this any clearer, but I will try again. The Divine Fire, being the ‘material’ out of which material existence is formed, is that which manifests that which the scientists measure, weigh and dissect. The scientists have only tools that are part of the manifestation, and as such are unable to use such tools to examine that which manifests, so it is not possible for us to examine the Divine Fire in its nakedness. We can only examine it when it is dressed up in its various roles as the individualisations we experience, be they forces, planets, atoms, particles of what ever.
DT says, ‘When one looks at their methodology, approach to knowledge, and value system for determining truth, it seems pretty likely that had the ancient Stoics lived today, then they would have been empiricists with some different conclusions in their physics. But, amazingly, because their conceptions were generally on target, these differences would not have altered the fundamental foundational principles that support Stoic ethics - which is why Stoicism is so relevant today.’I do so agree with the, ‘because their conceptions were generally on target, these differences would not have altered the fundamental foundational principles that support Stoic ethics - which is why Stoicism is so relevant today’. However I do not agree that the Stoics of old used empirical methods only. They clearly held reason to be of a high order, and through reason they accepted the ‘gods’, but not with the mythology. They accepted the ‘gods’ on their terms. That being, that Zeus as the Divine Fire is a logical explanation for the way things are.
Please also remember that I arrived at many of the same conclusions that the Stoics of old arrived at before I had ever read of Stoicism, and I had the benefit of modern knowledge. In fact I found the empiricism of the scientist lacking in its ability to offer a full and reasonable explanation for all that we see around us – I was faced with many apparent conflicts within what the scientists dressed up as knowledge, and discovered that much was little more than mythology.
DT says, ‘But this would not be the "bearded man" image that makes wise decisions for us, that seems to have developed for many latter influenced Stoics.’Are we talking here of Christians with Stoic leanings, for I know of not one Stoic that disagreed with Laertius’ statement that the Stoics did not see god as being of human form. There is no ‘bearded man’, and I feel this is half the problem in our attempts for mutual understanding – a determination not to be drawn into a belief that incorporates a ‘bearded man’ or similar mythology, to the extent of not recognising that nothing that I have talked of requires such. I have argued that to fully appreciate Stoicism one needs a faith in the Stoic view of Zeus. But I would not argue that one then has to build places of worship or have rituals etc – rather the reverse. Why should we want a priest class when we are told to do it for ourselves. Having accepted the concept of the nature of Zeus as the whole, having accepted that ethics is more than just a human-centric principle, we can then just get on with being good Stoics.
DT says, ‘Aren't the laws of the universe provident and won't they bring about the history of the world?’No. The ‘lawmaker’ is provident, and the laws are part of it ‘having foresight and making provision for the future’ (dictionary). But part of the laws is that we have free-wills and so can influence the future history of the world. Back to the case for soft-determinism.
I will add that the Stoic take is also that with the laws in place, the lawmaker cannot contravene them, which is why, from our view point, it is fortunate that Zeus gave us a spark of Its reasoning faculty and the freedom to use it.
DT says, ‘Fragment 30, Clement Strom. V, 104, 1. "This world [the same of all] did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everliving fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures."My take has to be that I find no fault with the quote from Heraclitus. But you are still looking for an excuse to avoid taking Zeus seriously. The Cosmos (in this context) is the whole and the all; Zeus is the Cosmos; the Divine Fire is one viewpoint of the nature of Zeus. The laws are part of the whole, therefore the whole cannot be the laws for they are only a part. The term Divine Fire is mostly associated with the reasoning faculty, not with what it reasons.
I think this jives with the notion of existence simply existing, and the Divine Fire is *part of* that grand flux, the creative side of opposite forces of creation and destruction *within* the universe. Not the author of the universe, existence, or laws itself, but rather, the Divine Fire *IS* the set of laws and action between components within the universe.’
================================
Nigel (to Rick):
I said, "It [Divine Fire] is here with us now. It permeates every part of our bodies and every part of all that is around us."What you see is what you get! If everything is a manifestation of the two principles that are seen as being aspects of the Cosmos, then whatever you see, or experience, including the science you rely so heavily on, is a manifestation of the Divine Fire. So I would correct your statement – you see it, but you do not understand what you are seeing.
Rick replied, ‘If you say so. I don't see it. When you can show me instead of just tell me about it, I will take it seriously.’
You challenge me as follows, ‘So you see everything with absolute clarity, eh? Okay, so why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? How does gravity work? What causes inertia? If you can see with absolute clarity, then you can answer questions like these.’
I claimed that Stoicism sees matters with absolute clarity – not that I had such clarity. However I am willing to concede that such a claim was a bit over the top. What I suppose influenced my statement is a quote from Professor Gilbert Murray, ‘The Sceptics showed how the senses are notoriously fallible and contradictory, and how the laws of reasoning lead by equally correct processes to opposite conclusions. …. But Zeno had no patience with this sort of thing. He wanted to get to business.’ Basically no matter how much theorising and philosophising one does, one has to put aside doubts and believe in something in order to be able to get on with life. Stoicism is about finding clarity to the extent that we have a practical life philosophy to enable us to live ethically, rather than to dither about undecided and so act un-ethically through default. Stoicism is about reasoning out a structure by which to live, while always being willing to amend the structure if better reasoning comes along or practice proves to fall short of the aims. I believe that Stoicism has stood the test of time and so many of its ideas may be taken to demonstrate a high degree of clarity.
As to your challenge to explain the items you raise, I will answer this in a separate posting.
You ask, ‘why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? How does gravity work? What causes inertia?’Gravity and inertia relate to laws of nature, and so naturally I would say that these laws are explainable as being aspects of the Divine Fire manifesting the organisation around us – the Cosmos fulfilling its role as lawmaker and sustainer. There may be further scope for science to go in discovering more about such subjects, but finally this is the area of understanding that is beyond science, but is not beyond reasoned theorising by philosophers.
However the question of why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is another matter. The present problem for science is simply a matter of incorrect theorising on other observations. Remember that most of the science in this field is called theoretical science with good reason. So any theory based on what observations and hard science there is, is just as viable as the Big Bang Theory, if not more so if it can answer why the expansion of the Universe around us is accelerating.
According to Einstein’s theories there are nine possible shapes to the Universe. The Big Bang Theory mainly is based on the idea of it being the simplest form, that of a sphere that has expanded out from a singularity. Now, even this singularity is becoming an embarrassment for the Big Bang theorists, let alone the problem that according to the Big Bang Theory the expansion should be decelerating.
Back in the Eighties I read an article in one of the science journals that the mathematics appeared to be showing that in tracing the expansion back that it did not appear to meet at the supposed singularity, but instead appeared to be a flow that spread in the forms of arcs, rather than the straight lines of an explosion. At the same time I read a book called ‘Imagined Worlds’ (Paul Anderson & Deborah Cadbury, BBC publishing, 1985) in which Professor Roger Penrose offered a picture of the geometry that represented a ‘point in twister space’, a theory he was working on at the time. If I remember correctly it represented a point in six dimensions. Basically it was a picture of a torus – a doughnut with a hole in the middle. In looking at this picture and in light of the article referred to, ideas I had been working on came together in the realisation that the Universe could possibly be in the shape of a torus. As it turned out, I later discovered that the torus is one of the shapes for the Universe as predicted by Einstein.
My big problem was that in a torus universe, what with all cosmic bodies travelling around it in a spiral, passing through the eye of the torus on a regular basis, as the cosmic bodies travelled out from the eye there would be an acceleration to the expansion as the cosmic matter left the restricted space of the eye. While the torus universe theory fitted with many other ideas I had, this was the one flaw it had, for at the time it was claimed that the expansion was decelerating.
I was still trying to settle this ‘flaw’ in my theory, when it was announced that there was a flaw with the Big Bang Theory in so far as the expansion was accelerating.
So in answer to your request that I explain the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, there was no Big Bang. The Universe is a torus shape, and what is seen by theoretical science as a one off explosion from a singularity is in fact the emission from a restricted area of space of a steady continuous stream of what has been sucked in on the other side of the torus – the mother of all Black Holes.
However, this is not necessarily the full answer. As a theory the torus universe answers many questions that the Big Bang Theory does not. As far as I know it does not conflict with any present day science or observations. But the present day science and observations may be wrong, or may be improved upon. The torus universe may just be part of a far larger Cosmos. In fact for all we know we may just happen to be in an area of space where a particular eddy (cosmic wind) is blowing galactic bodies away from each other and the ‘wind’ may be getting stronger.
As I have said before, the Big Bang Theory is so full of holes that it is not even suitable for straining cabbage. When I refer to scientists being afraid to consider matters outside of their view, I am aware that where I have approached scientists to ask their view on my theory none have ever come back to me to rubbish it – they have instead chosen to ignore it.
Great fun all this speculation, but it doesn’t alter our relationship to the whole one iota.
================================
DT (to Nigel):
I will see if I can consolidate this somewhat...
ON EMPIRICISM
I don’t mean to speak for Rick, but when have we shown a willingness to accept that knowledge can be gained through means other than experiment and observation? I agree with everything Rick said, but what we are saying is that we do not discount the possibility that knowledge *could* be gained in other ways yet to be confirmed, but for now it seems that empiricism is the only one shown to be true so far.
Part of this, I think, comes from what seems to be a misunderstanding you have about empiricism. When you wrote, “However I do not agree that the Stoics of old used empirical methods only. They clearly held reason to be of a high order...” I was taken aback. Reason and formal logic as well, are part of the empirical approach. Your view of empiricism seems to be that if we register a “1” on the proton counter, that we can only say a 1 appeared on the proton counter, not that there was 1 proton. Empiricism is not so bare-bones as you are making it out to be, or else it would not have been capable of functioning to the amazingly successful degree it has in increasing human knowledge over the past several centuries.
Empiricism says that reliable facts must come through the senses through observation. But we can then take that raw data and formulate models by reasoning them out using logic. Non-empirical approaches would be those that seek to use reason and logic *alone* without gathering foundational data from observation, or seeking to use subjective experiences and feelings as foundational data. But both approaches necessarily employ reason and logic.
Everything the Stoics did seems to follow this empirical approach. To quote www.archaenia.com on Stoicism again...
“The fundamental proposition of the Stoic physics is that "nothing incorporeal exists". This materialism coheres with the sense-impression orientation of their doctrine of knowledge. Plato placed knowledge in thought, and reality, therefore, in the ideal form. The Stoics, however, place knowledge in physical sensation, and reality -- what is known by the senses -- is matter.”
“Sense-impression”, “physical sensation”, “known by the senses”. This is as close as one can get to the empirical approach prior to the enlightenment’s terminologies.
But there is a second point to all this, and that is that you suggest you used reason to reach your conclusions on the Divine Fire. Your use of reason was not a problem. But the fact that you start, not with empirical data as a source for your reason, but anecdotal events and intuitive notions as the source is what makes the approach non-empirical, and therefore also inconsistent with what seemed to be the Stoics approach to knowledge. As Sagan mentioned (actually quoted someone else I believe) in “The Demon Haunted World”, (paraphrasing) ‘The mystic and the scientist use the same methods of reason, the same logic, and the same means of formulating hypotheses. The only difference is that the scientist has a laboratory to test those hypotheses.”
ON THE SPIRITUAL
Nigel: “Is the wetness of water material or is it immaterial? Is the quality of the flowability of water material of immaterial?”These things are impressions we get through our experience, resulting in a recognized pattern. This is exactly what I refer to in my summary on brains, ecologies, economies, etc. This is an emergent property of complex systems. As you would agree, this is not a supernatural thing, but it is immaterial (or metaphysical in a sense). Likewise, you can’t measure the mass or volume of a “democracy” or “capitalism” because these are names for *patterns* of activity. If this is what you mean by “spiritual” then this, too, would be within the proper purview of science and empiricism. Indeed our experience of things like “wetness” is currently being studied by cognitive science. And many other immaterial concepts and other emergent properties are being analyzed by complex systems theorists. There’s a lot of math involved, but the insights these folks are having on complexity in our universe (i.e. the nature of the Logos) is some of the most exciting and cutting-edge scientific work being done today. So, when you say...
Nigel: “...rather than pushing for turning it into a non spiritual philosophy such as, what I see as, cold heartless empiricism.”I see two problems. One, the spiritual of which you describe is perfectly within the realm of empiricism, and so this wouldn’t turn it into anything non-spiritual. Second, the description of empiricism as “cold heartless” is baffling to me. What is so cold and heartless about observing our wonderful universe, documenting what we observe, and then reasoning out models on how it works (such as what the Stoics did)?
ON SCIENCE
Nigel: “I was faced with many apparent conflicts within what the scientists dressed up as knowledge, and discovered that much was little more than mythology.”Can you give an example of this? Please provide references to your years of study, research, and worldwide consensus you’ve gathered which trumps these “mythologies”.
Nigel: “Remember that most of the science in this field is called theoretical science with good reason.”Yes, but not the reason you think. Once again, I must *beg* you to *please* reconsider this concept you have about what a “theory” is. Your view on this is part of a very persistent, rampant, and tragic misunderstanding among a lot of people. A “theory” has nothing whatsoever to do with “certainty level”. I know, because of our cultural conditioning, when we hear the word we get this connotation in our head. But, really, when you hear the word you should instead get the same connotation in your head that you get when you hear the world “collection”, “compendium”, “model”, or “body of work”. That’s what a theory is – a body of collected propositions forming an overall model of a phenomena. Phrases people say like, “the Big Bang is only a theory” are completely nonsensical. The “theory” is the holy grail of science – a complete theory is what scientists work to formulate and once it’s done, it can only be backed up more or less. There is no other “stage” at which it “moves up” to some higher level – that’s it.
Nigel: “I was still trying to settle this ‘flaw’ in my theory, when it was announced that there was a flaw with the Big Bang Theory in so far as the expansion was accelerating.”Are you a cosmologist or a physicist doing active research in the field, gathering data, etc? You may be, but if you’re not, then you don’t have a “theory”. To have a theory, you must have documented data backing up a model of the subject, and it must have been formulated using the rigorous methodology of science, and it would be more valid once peer reviewed.
If, on the other hand, you like to read a lot about science and you have a lot of ideas in your head about how you “think it is”, then you have a “guess”, or a “layman’s notion”. If you’re like me on this, then we can’t have scientific theories, any more than we can make “State of the Union” addresses or declare official state holidays.
Nigel: “So any theory based on what observations and hard science there is, is just as viable as the Big Bang Theory...”Sorry, that’s not correct in the least. There are standards in science and there are reasons why some theories are considered more founded than others. It’s not just a bunch of people sitting around, reading articles on the internet and watching Discovery channel, throwing out their opinions on things.
ON HUMILITY
You say, “I also do not hold with the great conflagration idea” and also claim that several scientific theories are mythological. You have your own ideas about how things are, and I suppose we all do. But your willingness to completely disregard so much with so little basis seems to indicate to me that you have enormous misunderstandings at just what goes into science, the scientific process, and scientific theories. It’s like me sitting on my couch thinking I know more about how to run a power line than the National Electricians Association or something. I’m not any more a scientist myself, but I would ask that you look more into the scientific approach, scientific philosophy, empirical philosophy before making many of the blanket judgments you have.
On a separate note concerning humility, the empirical approach is perhaps the most humble approach we can take. It is the only one that acknowledges our imperfections and limitations as human beings – that says, “we don’t know it all – we have to look, and then we can begin to figure it out, however imperfectly and incompletely.”
I know you have read books on these subjects, as have many of us, but you seem to throw around beliefs on what happened billions of years ago, what the shape of the universe is, what widely held scientific theories are mythological, and so on with such bravado that I’m not even sure how to respond. I think a lot of your hostility towards science and empiricism comes out of misunderstanding it to be cold and heartless. It also seems that this may be leading you to reject those elements within Stoicism because of your love for what much of Stoicism offers, thus creating a conflict, or a cognitive dissonance of some type.
I respect your right to believe these things, but I hope you might look into some of these scientific concepts a little deeper before passing judgment. As for Stoicism, I think you are absolutely right about the different ways of looking at it. As Rick pointed out to me recently, when a person says they are a Christian, that can mean a lot of things. I would note that if you asked Pat Robertson, the Pope, St. Paul, Jesus, and George W. Bush about Christianity on the same level of detail we’ve been discussing Stoicism, you’d probably get very different answers. :)
================================
Nigel (to DT):
On Empiricism: I repeat the dictionary definition – ‘Empiricism - the theory or philosophy stating that knowledge can only be gained through experiment and observation’ (My applying bold to ‘only’)
No mention of logic and reasoning to arrive at implied conclusions. Experiments and observation only. Cold hard facts. It requires logic and reasoning to put the flesh on the bones. Hence ‘Empiricism Plus’. However as I also quoted, ‘The Sceptics showed how the senses are notoriously fallible and contradictory, and how the laws of reasoning lead by equally correct processes to opposite conclusions.’ I would add that reasoning and logic can also lead to true or false conclusions, or even partially true or false conclusions. Scientific observations are open to misunderstanding, and experiments can be influenced by the observer regardless of however many precautions one takes (a scientifically recognised problem).
Reasoning and logic are excellent tools, as is experimentation and observation. But they are not the be all to end all that many would have us believe. Consistency, surviving the test of time, universality etc are all other useful concepts that help to arrive at useful theories about how to live life etc.
You appear to accept that there is something that ‘governs’ – I believe that we are agreed in this, albeit that we do not agree as to its nature. But I have come across no science that has observed it or measured it. Again reason for me calling your philosophy Empiricism Plus, compared to the dictionary definition.
Of me you say, ‘Your use of reason was not a problem. But the fact that you start, not with empirical data as a source for your reason, but anecdotal events and intuitive notions as the source is what makes the approach non-empirical, and therefore also inconsistent with what seemed to be the Stoics approach to knowledge.’You misrepresent me. I have stated that I also use common conceptions as the Stoic of old did, and I also claim to have had repeated, but not necessarily repeatable at will, experiences of something that I find the Stoic idea of Divine Fire to be as good a theory of what it was that I experienced as any other theory. I am not talking of ‘anecdotal data’ – I am talking of personal repeated experiences involving physical events as well as thought. If you want to call me mad or a liar get it out in the open and do so, but please do not misrepresent what I have stated. My experiences of the Divine Fire are empirical, not anecdotal. My individual experiences are not a statement of Stoic ideas, even if Stoicism allows the space for such to happen, for example we have clear acceptance of such things as Socrates’ daemon.
On Spiritual : You say, ‘There’s a lot of math involved, but the insights these folks are having on complexity in our universe (i.e. the nature of the Logos) is some of the most exciting and cutting-edge scientific work being done today.’The appropriate word here is ‘complexity’ – great, let people create an excuse for them to be employed in academic areas by inventing all sorts of new specialisations J, but I do not see that all of the complexity they theorise over has any relevance to us mere laypeople and our wish to get on with everyday life.
You say, ‘I see two problems. One, the spiritual of which you describe is perfectly within the realm of empiricism, and so this (empiricism) wouldn’t turn it into anything non-spiritual. Second, the description of empiricism as “cold heartless” is baffling to me. What is so cold and heartless about observing our wonderful universe, documenting what we observe, and then reasoning out models on how it works’From this statement I fail to see why we are disagreeing. If the spiritual I talk of is acceptable to your empiricism you have no cause to question it – but then I am sure that this is not what you meant. Seriously though, see my comments on empiricism above and where I am coming from.
‘What is so cold and heartless about observing our wonderful universe, documenting what we observe, and then reasoning out models on how it works?’Absolutely nothing. Stopping at observation and experiment only is cold and heartless – include a little thought, a little awe, a little wonder, even a little belief, and to find joy in such and you have something.
On Science: Lets start with ‘theory’. Back to the dictionary – ‘1. a series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspects of the world; 2. an idea or explanation which has not yet been proved, a conjecture; 3. the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject; 4. an ideal, hypothetical or abstract situation; 5 ideal, hypothetical or abstract reasoning. (again my capitalisation)
Nothing here about observation or experimentation, let alone theorising being the exclusive province of science. Nor is there anything here that suggest that a theory is fact or even a collection of facts. In fact i would sugest that the reverse applies.
You say, ‘The “theory” is the holy grail of science – a complete theory is what scientists work to formulate and once it’s done, it can only be backed up more or less.’This is one of my objections – ‘HOLY GRAIL’. So we now have scope for seeing such as me as heretics – when do I get burnt at the stake?
‘it can only be backed up more or less’ – how about, 'it can be proved to be wrong, or at the very least, flawed'. Your faith is blinding you to how far out on a limb the theoretical scientists and mathematicians have taken us and how much they have indoctrinated people.
I will quote from Professor Hawkins’ ‘A Brief History of Time’.
‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. … On the other hand you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasised, a good theory is characterised by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in theory be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it increases; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.’The Big Bang Theory has been modified over and over again and it is now a collection of theories, each based on not just observation and experimentation, but also on a whole string of flawed theories. It is getting top heavy with theories, and is liable to topple at any time.
We now have another example of a prediction of the Big Bang Theory being disproved by observation – the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating as the theory says it should – are the scientists going to stick another dubious theory on it like a plaster to try to stop it bleeding to death, holding to their ‘holy grail’ out of blind faith, or are they going to start to consider other ideas.
This is not egoism on my part. I also laugh at myself for having the audacity to believe that I can see what the experts don’t see. (However I have on a number of occasions done just that in other fields.) My ideas may be just so much rubbish. But if my ideas are such rubbish why haven’t those scientists I have approached with such not just slapped me down by showing me where I am wrong, instead of ignoring me. I would be happy to subject my theory to ‘peer revue’. But then the scientists of the day didn’t want to consider Einstein’s theories either, and he was more of a peer to them than I am ever likely to be. They just saw a clerk working in a patents office. Appearances can be deceiving – the cleverest of all people is not always right; the most stupid of people is not always wrong. Judge my theory on its merits, not on my lack of qualifications – and one of its merits is that it forecast and acceleration to the expansion of the universe which is more than the Big Bang Theory did.
But regardless of my ego, or my theory, it is clear from the words of Hawkins and Popper that the Big Bang Theory is not as secure as you make out.
You say, ‘There are standards in science and there are reasons why some theories are considered more founded than others. It’s not just a bunch of people sitting around, reading articles on the internet and watching Discovery channel, throwing out their opinions on things.’Beyond scientific theories there are philosophical theories, and these are as sound as scientific ones, only they can deal with areas where science cannot go. Like scientific theories, some are good theories and some are bad theories. My main reference to ‘mythology’ regards scientific theories is that they claim to be scientific, even when the reasoning that has interpreted the facts is coloured by the philosophical views of the scientists – for example, there is an undercurrent from a number of scientists that suggest that, without any evidence to support such, they wish to have their theories imply that there is no ‘god’ – that they, the scientists, can explain everything given time. Now that is egoism.
Finally you say, ‘Can you give an example of this [mythology]? Please
provide references to your years of study, research, and worldwide consensus
you’ve gathered which trumps these “mythologies”.
I believed I had provided an example – the Big Bang Theory. The rest of your statement is nothing but an insulting put down suggesting that my opinion is of no worth whatsoever – are you claiming that your loyal acceptance of scientific theories as fact ‘trumps’ my position.
On Humility: You say, ‘But your willingness to completely disregard so much with so little basis seems to indicate to me that you have enormous misunderstandings at just what goes into science, the scientific process, and scientific theories.’Most un-empirical of you! J You are willing to make such a judgement with so little basis. Where is your observation of misunderstandings and ‘little basis’? Where is your experimentation? Can we have evidence of your research into what I know, for I do not remember having you investigate in depth the extent of the knowledge that I have gained over 59 years of life, knowledge that goes into my philosophical theories. Your judgement of me is just an unresearched theory of yours that has arrived at an incorrect conclusion.
You also say, ‘On a separate note concerning humility, the empirical approach is perhaps the most humble approach we can take. It is the only one that acknowledges our imperfections and limitations as human beings – that says, “we don’t know it all – we have to look, and then we can begin to figure it out, however imperfectly and incompletely.”’Empiricism is the ONLY approach that uses this method? This is humility? Have you understood anything about Stoicism? Stoicism takes into account more than the limited knowledge of the scientists and allows us as individuals to think for ourselves – we are allowed to have our own theories. We are not tied to the Head Priests – the scientists.
You add, ‘It also seems that this may be leading you to reject those elements within Stoicism because of your love for what much of Stoicism offers, thus creating a conflict, or a cognitive dissonance of some type.’Interesting. Your ideas are Ok – because you agree with your priests, the scientists. My ideas, which take into account present day scientific observations and therefore do not fully agree with the Stoic science of old, are the result of a psychological mismatch because I disagree with some not very crucial ideas of the Stoic of old. You are sane. I am insane.
I believe that is a reasonable paraphrase of what you have said.
I have stated my case. You have stated your case. You are now trying to discredit me. So I assume you have now run out of any logical argument. I therefore would like to bring this line of discussion with you to a close. Instead of trying to discredit me, let us just agree to disagree.
You believe what you like about what the Stoics call the Divine Fire and ignore what the Stoics said about it. I will accept the logical conclusions of the Stoics of old describing the Cosmos as Zeus, Pronoia, Providence, Phusis, the Divine Fire etc. I will accept the logical implications of the Stoics of old describing the Cosmos as being alive, immortal, rational, intellectual, with a reasoning faculty that pervades everything. I will continue with my understanding that the Stoics saw that all matter, that is all that exists, is merely a manifestation of the finest ‘matter’ of all – Divine Fire. I will accept that the ruling principle, the consciousness of the Cosmos, is the Cosmos, and that we are all part of it - even you. :)
Now maybe there are other subjects relating to Stoicism that we can get onto.
================================
DT (to Nigel):
Nigel: "On Empiricism: I repeat the dictionary definition - 'Empiricism - the theory or philosophy stating that knowledge can only be gained through experiment and observation'This one particular wording of a definition you've found on Empiricism is not appropriate, especially in the light you are understanding it. If you want to take that phrasing alone without any insight into what it's trying to say, then that wording can even be said to be *wrong*.
Empiricism is where you gather your raw data by empirical observations - but then, of course, you apply logic and reason to understanding that data. This is what empiricism is and this is what science does all the time. But that doesn't mean that "knowledge" is coming from some other source. The knowledge is still ultimately coming from those observations. This is what the definition you quote is trying to say. You are taking it in a very weird and strict sort of way that wasn't meant. So, what you're calling "empiricism plus" is empiricism. What you think of as "empiricism only" doesn't even exist - *no one* practices that, especially not scientists.
Nigel: "I would add that reasoning and logic can also lead to true or false conclusions, or even partially true or false conclusions. Scientific observations are open to misunderstanding, and experiments can be influenced by the observer regardless of however many precautions one takes (a scientifically recognised problem)."Indeed - and that's as best as we humans can do, at least as has been verified to date.
Nigel: "Reasoning and logic are excellent tools, as is experimentation and observation. But they are not the be all to end all that many would have us believe. Consistency, surviving the test of time, universality etc are all other useful concepts that help to arrive at useful theories about how to live life etc."Consistency, surviving the test of time, and universality are all a very important part of the scientific method and of empiricism (and incidentally, they are part of reasoning and logic). You are taking one primal principle of the approach, stripping away everything else until it makes no sense and represents something no one ever practiced, and then critiquing it as making no sense and being incomplete.
Nigel: "My experiences of the Divine Fire are empirical, not anecdotal."Yes, they may be empirical if you experienced them with your five senses, which *seems* to be the case. But they do not fit within the empirical approach or the definition of "evidence" because *those specific experiences* have not been cross-verified by independent sources, and they are not reliably repeatable under controlled conditions. This is an important requirement of scientific evidence because we should recognize that our perceptions and memories and interpretation of things can be distorted or wrong - and we don't have to be "madmen or liars" for this to be the case - it happens commonly to ordinary honest people. So, yes, your experience is anecdotal, and therefore technically not real "evidence". That doesn't mean that they didn't happen - it simply means that no one else can verify empirically that they happened.
This is the very same standard applied to a respected laboratory that reports something extraordinary. It will not be accepted until other labs have repeated the results independently. As you said, it must be consistent and stand up to the test of time.
Nigel: "The appropriate word here is 'complexity' - great let people create an excuse for them to be employed in academic areas by inventing all sorts of new specialisations J, but I do not see that all of the complexity they theorise over has any relevance to us mere laypeople and our wish to get on with everyday life."Complex systems theory *is* the study of the Divine Fire and the Logos of the Cosmos itself in real concrete terms. It is the continuation of Heraclitus observations about the ever changing river and the universal nature of the interaction of elements. If that isn't relevant to Stoics then nothing in the sciences is.
Nigel: "On Science: Lets start with 'theory'. Back to the dictionary - '1. a series of ideas and general principles which seek to explain some aspects of the world; 2. an idea or explanation which has not yet been proved, a conjecture; 3. the general and usually abstract principles or ideas of a subject; 4. an ideal, hypothetical or abstract situation; 5 ideal, hypothetical or abstract reasoning. (again my capitalisation)"It seems your reliance on dictionary terms to the exclusion of understanding of a concept is overly simplistic. Definition #1 and #3 is the scientific definition of "theory" and the one I'm talking about. Definition #4 is a quirky sort of way that some people have informally used the word. #5 is the common usage of the word as laypersons use it, but it is *not* the scientific version of the word. #2 could fall under either the scientific or the layman's term, since theories could be proven to various levels.
There is a layman's version of the word as people use it in common speech, and this relates to an "educated guess". But this is *NOT* the scientific definition of the word, or anything close to what it means scientifically. In fact, when #2 says "not yet been proved" this does not apply to the scientific version because it implies that any theory is ever "proved". In science, all theories are provisional. There are just different degrees to which they are backed up (until or unless they are overturned by other theories, as you mentioned).
The problem is that you are using the layman's version of the word in a scientific context, while addressing scientific matters. This is the source of the error, and why you're coming up with so many misunderstandings about science. A lot of people do this and if there were one thing that the public needs to understand about science it is this very common misconception. *PLEASE* return to my explanation of theory again, and find other sources if you must, but get this other idea of the word out of your thinking if you're going to be discussing science. "Theory" in the scientific context has *absolutely nothing* to do with level of certainty or whether it's been "proven" or not.
Nigel: "You say, 'The "theory" is the holy grail of science - a complete theory is what scientists work to formulate and once it's done, it can only be backed up more or less.' This is one of my objections - 'HOLY GRAIL'. So we now have scope for seeing such as me as heretics - when do I get burnt at the stake?"I have created an enormous misunderstanding with that phrase, as it was not interpreted in the way I meant it. The holy grail was an item that was sought after relentlessly by the knights of the round table.
By using that metaphor, what I was saying was that the theory is what scientists seek to build. I was not, in *any* sense, implying that theories have some sort of impenetrable status once built. Some theories are very weakly supported, others more strongly supported. Everything Hawking said in your quote is exactly right and exactly where I stand.
There is nothing about the holy grail story that has to do with things being immune to challenge anyway. I think you just saw the word "holy" and went on with your science=religion line.
What I was saying is that there isn't a higher level that a theory gets to where it is "now proven". In fact, what I was saying was the very thing you are: which is that the theory is always provisional - it never gets to that "proven forever" level - the theory IS the highest level, and THAT is why creating a good theory is sought after by scientists (like the holy grail was sought after by the Arthurian Knights). So, in saying there is no higher level than the theory, I am not elevating theory to "fact" - I'm saying that there IS no "fact" level for science, for empiricists, or for any rational person.
Nigel: "I would be happy to subject my theory to ‘peer revue’."I admittedly haven't seen what you might submit to them, but I would venture to guess that you don't have a theory (in the scientific sense), but rather a "layman's speculation" (called "theory" by laymen outside of scientific settings) of which I have many myself. A few questions...
1) Have you ever read Einstein's Relativity theory? It has a lot of math in it, and is based on what observations had been made at the time (even though further observation would be required to back up the new claims in it).
2) What empirical tests can be performed to prove your theory? More importantly, what set of observations would be such that, if they were to happen, your theory would be disproved? A theory must be capable, in principle, of being DISproved before it is considered valid. If there is nothing that can measured or observed that could, even in principle, ever disprove the theory, then it is illegitimate.
3) How much math does your "theory" have? Scientists can only peer review your work if you provide an outline of the experiments you used to reach your conclusions, so they can repeat them and see if they reach the same results. They need specific figures and facts to begin. This doesn't mean reason and logic aren't used - but it does mean they need a starting place with empirical data they can verify.
Scientists do not peer review "laymen's speculation" - it's simply not part of their job description. That's because scientists deal with what we can determine factually about our physical universe.
Nigel: "Empiricism is the ONLY approach that uses this method? This is humility? Have you understood anything about Stoicism?"You are looking at them as separate categories of thought. For one, anything that uses the approach I mentioned would be using an empirical approach. Secondly, Stoicism it seems to me uses the empirical approach to knowledge. So, I think most of the major Stoics were empiricists. But I can see how, thinking of empiricism as you do, that wouldn't seem to be the case.
Nigel: "You believe what you like about what the Stoics call the Divine Fire and ignore what the Stoics said about it."I think you're right that many of them spoke of it as it was conscious - I see that now. But Heraclitus and Zeno (if not others) do not seem to think this, or so it seems to me now.
You said to Jan that she 'saw an original Stoicism that was twisted by later Stoics' and you rather saw it as an evolving continuum. I would suggest a third take, which is that Stoicism was slightly different things to different people - including differences between the major Stoic figures.
My mother, who is a Protestant* doesn't consider Catholics to be "real Christians". Regardless, if there is room for Pat Robertson and the Pope in Christianity, then there seems to be room for the "conscious” and “non/semi conscious" denominations within Stoicism. :)
[*Actually she calls herself a "non denominational Christian" and would probably not say she is a Protestant. This is part of a nationwide movement which seeks to cast off differences between Christian denominations, but which is specifically non-Catholic in content and Protestant in its beliefs nonetheless.]
© Copyright DT Strain
<< Home