Podcasts about Democritus

Epicurus (341–270 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher who founded Epicureanism, emphasizing the pursuit of a tranquil, happy life through ataraxia (freedom from fear) and aponia (absence of pain). His teachings combined atomism, ethics, and naturalistic theology, advocating simple living, friendship, and the rejection of superstition.

Summary on Kaṇāda   Kaṇāda, also known as Ulūka or Kashyapa, was an ancient Indian natural philosopher and the founder of the Vaisheshika school of Indian philosophy. He is often regarded as the earliest proponent of atomism in the world, proposing that the universe is composed of indivisible, eternal atoms (paramanu), which combine in various ways to form different substances. His ideas were recorded in the seminal text Vaiśeṣika Sūtra, which outlined a realistic and pluralistic ontology.   Estimated to have lived between the 6th century BCE and 2nd century BCE, Kaṇāda's philosophy explains the creation and functioning of the universe through six fundamental categories (padarthas): dravya (substance), guna (quality), karma (motion), samanya (generality), visesha (particularity), and samavaya (inherence). These categories encompass everything that can be experienced and known.   Kaṇāda's atomistic theory influenced later Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist philosophies and may have inspired thinkers in fields like medicine and physics, including scholars like Charaka. Though primarily focused on physical phenomena, Kaṇāda also integrated metaphysical ideas, such as the concept of Atman (soul) and the pursuit of moksha (liberation) through knowledge.   Key Contributions: 1. Atomism: Proposed that all matter is made of indestructible atoms. 2. Nine Substances: Identified nine dravyas (substances) including earth, water, fire, air, ether (akasha), time, direction, mind, and soul. 3. Non-Theistic Approach: Suggested that natural laws, rather than a deity, govern the universe. 4. Empirical Observations: Explained natural phenomena such as fire rising upwards, magnetism, and rainfall using logical reasoning. 5. Ethical Framework: Defined dharma as that which leads to material progress and spiritual liberation. Kaṇāda's logical and analytical approach laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry in India and significantly influenced the Nyaya school of philosophy, which emphasized logic and epistemology. His ideas on atoms and matter predated similar concepts proposed by Greek philosophers like Democritus.

I've had several requests to do another episode on finding happiness. If you want to listen to earlier podcasts I suggest #72 and #206. In this episode we go on a walkabout and read journal entries from guys in response to quotes about happiness such as: "The purpose of life is to be happy" by the Dalai Lama. "The power of finding beauty in the humblest things makes home happy and life lovely" by Louisa May Alcott. "Happiness resides not in possessions, and not in gold, happiness dwells in the soul" by Democritus.

In this episode, I reflect on Meditation 3.3 from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, exploring its central themes: the inevitability of death, the futility of fearing it, and the Stoic imperative to live well while we can. Marcus reminds us that even the most accomplished and revered figures—be they healers, conquerors, or philosophers—ultimately succumb to mortality. Their stories serve as a humbling reminder of our shared fate and an encouragement to prioritize virtue over fame, power, or fear. Key Takeaways: Mortality as a Universal Truth: From Hippocrates, the renowned healer, to Alexander the Great, a world conqueror, and even pre-Socratic philosophers like Heraclitus and Democritus, death claims everyone regardless of their accomplishments, intellect, or virtue. The Two Reasons to Remember Mortality: (1) It motivates us to cherish the time we have and use it wisely, both for personal growth and to nurture meaningful relationships. (2) It grounds us in the natural order, reminding us that we are part of Nature and subject to its laws. Why Immortality Isn't the Goal: The aim of life isn't to avoid death but to live virtuously. A good life is defined by our choices and actions in the present, not by the number of years we accumulate. Marcus' Reassurance About Death: Marcus suggests that death leads to one of two outcomes: either we transition to another life governed by reason, or we enter a state of eternal rest free from pain and struggle. Both are nothing to fear. Living in Accord with Nature: Death, like all aspects of life, is part of the rational order of the Cosmos. By accepting it as natural, we can focus on fulfilling our purpose—striving for virtue and contributing to the Cosmopolis. “Hippocrates, after curing many sicknesses, himself fell sick and died. The Chaldean astrologers foretold the death of many persons, then the hour of fate overtook them also. Alexander, Pompeius, and Julius Caesar, after so often utterly destroying whole towns and slaying in the field many myriads of horse and foot, themselves also one day departed from life. Heraclitus, after many speculations about the fire which should consume the Universe, was waterlogged by dropsy, poulticed himself with cow-dung and died. Vermin killed Democritus; another kind of vermin Socrates. What is the moral? You went on board, you set sail, you have made the port. Step ashore: if to a second life, nothing is void of gods, not even in that other world; but if to unconsciousness, you will cease to suffer pains and pleasures and to be the servant of an earthly vessel as far inferior as that which does it service is superior; for the one is mind and deity, the other clay and gore.” - Meditations 3.3 -- Go ad-free : https://stoicismpod.com/members Join the Discord Community : https://stoicismpod.com/discord Follow the print publication : https://stoicismpod.com/print Take my free courses : https://stoicismpod.com/courses Order my book : https://stoicismpod.com/book Source Text : https://stoicismpod.com/far Follow me on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/tannerocampbell.bsky.social Follow me on YouTube: https://youtube.com/@stoicismpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Episode 254 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 42 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. Today's Text XLII. And why should we worship them from an admiration only of that nature in which we can behold nothing excellent? and as for that freedom from superstition, which you are in the habit of boasting of so much, it is easy to be free from that feeling when you have renounced all belief in the power of the Gods; unless, indeed, you imagine that Diagoras or Theodorus, who absolutely denied the being of the Gods, could possibly be superstitious. I do not suppose that even Protagoras could, who doubted whether there were Gods or not. The opinions of these philosophers are not only destructive of superstition, which arises from a vain fear of the Gods, but of religion also, which consists in a pious adoration of them. What think you of those who have asserted that the whole doctrine concerning the immortal Gods was the invention of politicians, whose view was to govern that part of the community by religion which reason could not influence? Are not their opinions subversive of all religion? Or what religion did Prodicus the Chian leave to men, who held that everything beneficial to human life should be numbered among the Gods? Were not they likewise void of religion who taught that the Deities, at present the object of our prayers and adoration, were valiant, illustrious, and mighty men who arose to divinity after death? Euhemerus, whom our Ennius translated, and followed more than other authors, has particularly advanced this doctrine, and treated of the deaths and burials of the Gods; can he, then, be said to have confirmed religion, or, rather, to have totally subverted it? I shall say nothing of that sacred and august Eleusina, into whose mysteries the most distant nations were initiated, nor of the solemnities in Samothrace, or in Lemnos, secretly resorted to by night, and surrounded by thick and shady groves; which, if they were properly explained, and reduced to reasonable principles, would rather explain the nature of things than discover the knowledge of the Gods. XLIII. Even that great man Democritus, from whose fountains Epicurus watered his little garden, seems to me to be very inferior to his usual acuteness when speaking about the nature of the Gods. For at one time he thinks that there are images endowed with divinity, inherent in the universality of things; at another, that the principles and minds contained in the universe are Gods; then he attributes divinity to animated images, employing themselves in doing us good or harm; and, lastly, he speaks of certain images of such vast extent that they encompass the whole outside of the universe; all which opinions are more worthy of the country of Democritus than of Democritus himself; for who can frame in his mind any ideas of such images? who can admire them? who can think they merit a religious adoration?

Renowned computer scientist Neil Lawrence visits Google to discuss his book "The Atomic Human: What Makes Us Unique in the Age of AI." What does Artificial Intelligence mean for our identity? Our fascination with AI stems from the perceived uniqueness of human intelligence. We believe it's what differentiates us. Fears of AI not only concern how it invades our digital lives, but also the implied threat of an intelligence that displaces us from our position at the center of the world. Neil D. Lawrence's book shows why these fears may be misplaced. Atomism, proposed by Democritus, suggested it was impossible to continue dividing matter down into ever smaller components: eventually we reach a point where a cut cannot be made. In the same way, by slicing away at the facets of human intelligence that can be replaced by machines, AI uncovers what is left: an indivisible core that is the essence of humanity. Human intelligence has evolved across hundreds of thousands of years. Due to our physical and cognitive constraints over that time, it is social and highly embodied. By contrasting our capabilities with machine intelligence, The Atomic Human reveals the technical origins, capabilities and limitations of AI systems, and how they should be wielded. Not just by the experts, but ordinary people. Understanding this will enable readers to choose the future we want – either one where AI is a tool for us, or where we become a tool of AI – and how to counteract the digital oligarchy to maintain the fabric of an open, fair and democratic society. Visit http://youtube.com/TalksAtGoogle/ to watch the video.

Voices for Palestine here II Senator David Shoebridge and a darling 8 year old Palestinian/ Australian boy call for justice and peace for Palestine in this weeks report for the Sydney Oct 13th rally in Hyde Park send by Vivian Langford from #3cr Climate Action ShowSeismic blasting still a threat here II We speak with AMCS Oil and Gas Campaign Manager Louise Morris about the win against TGS which  had originally proposed plans to conduct seismic blasting over 77,000 square kilometres of ocean between Victoria's Otway coast and Tasmania's north west, including inside a Commonwealth marine park – an area larger than the size of Tasmania. However the fight is not over.Wangaratta Festival of Jazz & Blues here II Festival director Andrew Nunn joins us to spruik the new incarnation of a much loved festival coming up Nov 1-4 featuring Vince Jones, Hetty Kate, Cookin' on 3 Burners, and the National Jazz Awards in Wangaratta and much more infoThis is the week that was here II Kevin lets them have it with this round up of the nefarious this week.Democritus evening The women's voices here II the event held to discuss what is going on with the CFMEU by a Migrant Workers Coalition at Greek Democritus Workers League  included women who have been positively affected by their union membership and who spoke out in opposition to the main stream message of toxic masculinity being thrown at the CFMEU. We hear their voices.

Stephen Wolfram answers questions from his viewers about the history of science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: If you were transported back in time to say, the time of Aristotle, what would you do? What would you pursue in terms of career/research? - Why are Aristotle, Plato and Socrates the names most people think of when thinking about ancient society and science? - Almost all of these philosophers were also physicists. - How did ancient thinkers like Democritus come up with early ideas about atoms and matter? - Do you think letters or published books/essays are more useful for studying history? - What about things like newspapers, but particularly pamphlets and journals that are lost or completely undervalued for not being books, even though people at the time would have considered them essential? - Would you run off and not drink the poison if you were Socrates? - Do you think it's still possible to be a polymath today like da Vinci? - ​​I found a place that still produces those postcards you play on a record player. Do you think that would be a good way of storing things like a password or crypto, especially utilizing steganography? - If humanity completely falls back to the storage level of knowledge, would we be able to grow our knowledge back fast enough to decipher old SSDs before they decay, or would that be another Alexandria?

Welcome to the Monday Breakfast show for October 21st, 2024.On todays show:Interview with Sue-Ann Hunter on Yoorook Justice Commission - Marisa speaks to Sue-Ann Hunter, Deputy Chair & Commissioner of Yoorrook Justice Commission, to provide updates on Victoria's Truth-Telling process and the land injustice inquiryAudio from the Public Forum for CFMEU Solidarity, hosted by the Migrant Workers' Federation last Wednesday October 10th at Democritus [pron. deh-moh-kritess] House in Thornbury.We hear some opening comments from Agapi Pashos, secretary of the Greek Democritus Workers' League & Renata Musolino, longtime OH&S officer at Victorian Trades Hall Council (Renata discussing 54th anniversary of Westgate bridge collapse: Tues Oct 15th).Interview with Kalyani Inpakumar, NSW Tamil Refugee Council coordinator and an organiser of the Sydney camp outside Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke's. Interview with Marissa on the Refugee encampments and encouraging listeners to attend the encampment leading up to the 100th day of protest Songs:Cremsian, Alabaster DePlume, Laith Albandak 7:18DePlume's new digital EP titled Cremisan: Prologue to a Blade; The EP features two tracks recorded earlier this year in Bethlehem, Palestine with pianist Sami El Enaniand Qanoun player Laith Albandak, and a third track inspired by the experience of living insolidarity with the people of Palestine.Canto de Ossanha, Baden Powel 04:15minsBaden Powell, was a Brazilian guitarist. He combined classical techniques with popular harmony and swing.He performed in many styles, including bossa nova, samba, Brazilian jazz, and Latin jazz coloured concrete, Nemaphsis 3:09minsNemah Hasan, known professionally as Nemahsis,is a Palestinian Canadian singer-songwriter from Toronto, OntarioCase of You, Joni Mitchell

Welcome to Episode 250 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.  Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.  Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 37 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. XXXVII. ... for you asserted likewise that the form of the Deity is perceptible by the mind, but not by sense; that it is neither solid, nor invariable in number; that it is to be discerned by similitude and transition, and that a constant supply of images is perpetually flowing on from innumerable atoms, on which our minds are intent; so that we from that conclude that divine nature to be happy and everlasting. XXXVIII. What, in the name of those Deities concerning whom we are now disputing, is the meaning of all this? For if they exist only in thought, and have no solidity nor substance, what difference can there be between thinking of a Hippocentaur and thinking of a Deity? Other philosophers call every such conformation of the mind a vain motion; but you term it “the approach and entrance of images into the mind.” Thus, when I imagine that I behold T. Gracchus haranguing the people in the Capitol, and collecting their suffrages concerning M. Octavius, I call that a vain motion of the mind: but you affirm that the images of Gracchus and Octavius are present, which are only conveyed to my mind when they have arrived at the Capitol. The case is the same, you say, in regard to the Deity, with the frequent representation of which the mind is so affected that from thence it may be clearly understood that the Gods are happy and eternal. Let it be granted that there are images by which the mind is affected, yet it is only a certain form that occurs; and why must that form be pronounced happy? why eternal? But what are those images you talk of, or whence do they proceed? This loose manner of arguing is taken from Democritus; but he is reproved by many people for it; nor can you derive any conclusions from it: the whole system is weak and imperfect. For what can be more improbable than that the images of Homer, Archilochus, Romulus, Numa, Pythagoras, and Plato should come into my mind, and yet not in the form in which they existed? How, therefore, can they be those persons? And whose images are they? Aristotle tells us that there never was such a person as Orpheus the poet; and it is said that the verse called Orphic verse was the invention of Cercops, a Pythagorean; yet Orpheus, that is to say, the image of him, as you will have it, often runs in my head. What is the reason that I entertain one idea of the figure of the same person, and you another? Why do we image to ourselves such things as never had any existence, and which never can have, such as Scyllas and Chimæras? Why do we frame ideas of men, countries, and cities which we never saw? How is it that the very first moment that I choose I can form representations of them in my mind? How is it that they come to me, even in my sleep, without being called or sought after? XXXIX. The whole affair, Velleius, is ridiculous. You do not impose images on our eyes only, but on our minds. Such is the privilege which you have assumed of talking nonsense with impunity. But there is, you say, a transition of images flowing on in great crowds in such a way that out of many some one at least must be perceived! I should be ashamed of my incapacity to understand this if you, who assert it, could comprehend it yourselves; for how do you prove that these images are continued in uninterrupted motion? Or, if uninterrupted, still how do you prove them to be eternal? There is a constant supply, you say, of innumerable atoms. But must they, for that reason, be all eternal? To elude this, you have recourse to equilibration (for so, with your leave, I will call your Ἰσονομία), and say that as there is a sort of nature mortal, so there must also be a sort which is immortal. By the same rule, as there are men mortal, there are men immortal; and as some arise from the earth, some must arise from the water also; and as there are causes which destroy, there must likewise be causes which preserve. Be it as you say; but let those causes preserve which have existence themselves. I cannot conceive these your Gods to have any. But how does all this face of things arise from atomic corpuscles? Were there any such atoms (as there are not), they might perhaps impel one another, and be jumbled together in their motion; but they could never be able to impart form, or figure, or color, or animation, so that you by no means demonstrate the immortality of your Deity.

Welcome to Episode 247 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 32 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. XXXII. ...Nor can I conceive why Epicurus should rather say the Gods are like men than that men are like the Gods. You ask what is the difference; for, say you, if this is like that, that is like this. I grant it; but this I assert, that the Gods could not take their form from men; for the Gods always existed, and never had a beginning, if they are to exist eternally; but men had a beginning: therefore that form, of which the immortal Gods are, must have had existence before mankind; consequently, the Gods should not be said to be of human form, but our form should be called divine. However, let this be as you will. I now inquire how this extraordinary good fortune came about; for you deny that reason had any share in the formation of things. But still, what was this extraordinary fortune? Whence proceeded that happy concourse of atoms which gave so sudden a rise to men in the form of Gods? Are we to suppose the divine seed fell from heaven upon earth, and that men sprung up in the likeness of their celestial sires? I wish you would assert it; for I should not be unwilling to acknowledge my relation to the Gods. But you say nothing like it; no, our resemblance to the Gods, it seems, was by chance. Must I now seek for arguments to refute this doctrine seriously? I wish I could as easily discover what is true as I can overthrow what is false.XXXIII. You have enumerated with so ready a memory, and so copiously, the opinions of philosophers, from Thales the Milesian, concerning the nature of the Gods, that I am surprised to see so much learning in a Roman. But do you think they were all madmen who thought that a Deity could by some possibility exist without hands and feet?Does not even this consideration have weight with you when you consider what is the use and advantage of limbs in men, and lead you to admit that the Gods have no need of them? What necessity can there be of feet, without walking; or of hands, if there is nothing to be grasped? The same may be asked of the other parts of the body, in which nothing is vain, nothing useless, nothing superfluous; therefore we may infer that no art can imitate the skill of nature. Shall the Deity, then, have a tongue, and not speak—teeth, palate, and jaws, though he will have no use for them? Shall the members which nature has given to the body for the sake of generation be useless to the Deity? Nor would the internal parts be less superfluous than the external. What comeliness is there in the heart, the lungs, the liver, and the rest of them, abstracted from their use? I mention these because you place them in the Deity on account of the beauty of the human form.Depending on these dreams, not only Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermachus declaimed against Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, but that little harlot Leontium presumed to write against Theophrastus: indeed, she had a neat Attic style; but yet, to think of her arguing against Theophrastus! So much did the garden of Epicurus abound with these liberties, and, indeed, you are always complaining against them. Zeno wrangled. Why need I mention Albutius? Nothing could be more elegant or humane than Phædrus; yet a sharp expression would disgust the old man. Epicurus treated Aristotle with great contumely. He foully slandered Phædo, the disciple of Socrates. He pelted Timocrates, the brother of his companion Metrodorus, with whole volumes, because he disagreed with him in some trifling point of philosophy. He was ungrateful even to Democritus, whose follower he was; and his master Nausiphanes, from whom he learned nothing, had no better treatment from him.XXXIV. Zeno gave abusive language not only to those who were then living, as Apollodorus, Syllus, and the rest, but he called Socrates, who was the father of philosophy, the Attic buffoon, using the Latin word Scurra. He never called Chrysippus by any name but Chesippus. And you yourself a little before, when you were numbering up a senate, as we may call them, of philosophers, scrupled not to say that the most eminent men talked like foolish, visionary dotards.Certainly, therefore, if they have all erred in regard to the nature of the Gods, it is to be feared there are no such beings. What you deliver on that head are all whimsical notions, and not worthy the consideration even of old women. For you do not seem to be in the least aware what a task you draw on yourselves, if you should prevail on us to grant that the same form is common to Gods and men. The Deity would then require the same trouble in dressing, and the same care of the body, that mankind does. He must walk, run, lie down, lean, sit, hold, speak, and discourse. You need not be told the consequence of making the Gods male and female.Therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how this chief of yours came to entertain these strange opinions. But you constantly insist on the certainty of this tenet, that the Deity is both happy and immortal. Supposing he is so, would his happiness be less perfect if he had not two feet? Or cannot that blessedness or beatitude—call it which you will (they are both harsh terms, but we must mollify them by use)—can it not, I say, exist in that sun, or in this world, or in some eternal mind that has not human shape or limbs? All you say against it is, that you never saw any happiness in the sun or the world. What, then? Did you ever see any world but this? No, you will say. Why, therefore, do you presume to assert that there are not only six hundred thousand worlds, but that they are innumerable? Reason tells you so. Will not reason tell you likewise that as, in our inquiries into the most excellent nature, we find none but the divine nature can be happy and eternal, so the same divine nature surpasses us in excellence of mind; and as in mind, so in body? Why, therefore, as we are inferior in all other respects, should we be equal in form? For human virtue approaches nearer to the divinity than human form.

******Support the channel****** Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao   ******Follow me on****** Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/ The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDissenterYT   This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/   Dr. Monte Johnson is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego. He teaches and researches Greco-Roman philosophy and its influence on the history of philosophy and science. His main projects involve reconstructing a lost dialogue of Aristotle (the Protrepticus), and demonstrating the influence of Democritus on Hellenistic ethics. He has a growing interest in comparing Greco-Roman philosophy with other ancient wisdom traditions and literatures.   In this episode, we talk about Aristotle, Democritus, and Greco-Roman philosophy. We start with Aristotle, and discuss scientific unity, mechanistic and teleological explanations, the meaning of life, and the relationship between biology and theology. In regards to Democritus, we talk about his cosmology, his sociopolitical philosophy, and his ethics. We discuss Greco-Roman philosophy, and how it relates to other ancient philosophical traditions. Finally, Dr. Johnson tells us about a project of his regarding the translation of Pierre Gassendi's “Epicurus' System of Philosophy”. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIKHAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, NIKLAS CARLSSON, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, KATE VON GOELER, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, ERIK ENGMAN, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, AND NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, AND KOMOMO! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

Exploring the Roots of Materialism: The AtomistsIn this episode, Daniel and Nathan delve into the philosophy of materialism by exploring the early atomists, Leucippus and Democritus. They discuss the historical context of these philosophers, their main ideas about atoms and the void, and how these concepts form the basis of materialism. The conversation also touches on the implications of materialistic determinism, the challenges it poses for ethics and rationality, and its lasting impact on modern thought. The episode sets the stage for future discussions about Socrates and his opponents, the sophists.00:00 Introduction 00:50 The Predominant Worldview: Materialism01:26 Introduction to Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus03:16 The Concept of Atoms and the Void06:19 Mechanistic Explanations and Determinism13:09 Challenges and Implications of Materialism20:15 Transition to Socrates and Future Topics

Welcome to Episode 243 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 26 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, responds to Velleius, and we - in turn - will respond to Cotta in particular and the Skeptical argument in general.Today's TextXXVI. It seems an unaccountable thing how one soothsayer can refrain from laughing when he sees another. It is yet a greater wonder that you can refrain from laughing among yourselves. It is no body, but something like body! I could understand this if it were applied to statues made of wax or clay; but in regard to the Deity, I am not able to discover what is meant by a quasi-body or quasi-blood. Nor indeed are you, Velleius, though you will not confess so much. For those precepts are delivered to you as dictates which Epicurus carelessly blundered out; for he boasted, as we see in his writings, that he had no instructor, which I could easily believe without his public declaration of it, for the same reason that I could believe the master of a very bad edifice if he were to boast that he had no architect but himself: for there is nothing of the Academy, nothing of the Lyceum, in his doctrine; nothing but puerilities. He might have been a pupil of Xenocrates. O ye immortal Gods, what a teacher was he! And there are those who believe that he actually was his pupil; but he says otherwise, and I shall give more credit to his word than to another's. He confesses that he was a pupil of a certain disciple of Plato, one Pamphilus, at Samos; for he lived there when he was young, with his father and his brothers. His father, Neocles, was a farmer in those parts; but as the farm, I suppose, was not sufficient to maintain him, he turned school-master; yet Epicurus treats this Platonic philosopher with wonderful contempt, so fearful was he that it should be thought he had ever had any instruction. But it is well known he had been a pupil of Nausiphanes, the follower of Democritus; and since he could not deny it, he loaded him with insults in abundance. If he never heard a lecture on these Democritean principles, what lectures did he ever hear? What is there in Epicurus's physics that is not taken from Democritus? For though he altered some things, as what I mentioned before of the oblique motions of the atoms, yet most of his doctrines are the same; his atoms—his vacuum—his images—infinity of space—innumerable worlds, their rise and decay—and almost every part of natural learning that he treats of.Now, do you understand what is meant by quasi-body and quasi-blood? For I not only acknowledge that you are a better judge of it than I am, but I can bear it without envy. If any sentiments, indeed, are communicated without obscurity, what is there that Velleius can understand and Cotta not? I know what body is, and what blood is; but I cannot possibly find out the meaning of quasi-body and quasi-blood. Not that you intentionally conceal your principles from me, as Pythagoras did his from those who were not his disciples; or that you are intentionally obscure, like Heraclitus. But the truth is (which I may venture to say in this company), you do not understand them yourself.

Stephen Wolfram answers questions from his viewers about the history of science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: Are there exact matches or just similarities between complexity in nature (bio, evolution), society (political, religious) and technology?​​ - ​​How did the development of atomic theory by scientists such as Democritus, Dalton and Rutherford influence our understanding of discrete structures and the behavior of matter at the atomic level?​​ - How do historians know with certainty the identities of prominent historical figures? Could there have been more to the Socrates, Plato and Aristotle timeline?​​ - ​​Do the majority of historians of physics now have a favorable opinion of string theory?​​ - Is there any scientific reason "pure maths" concepts are picked up by physics much later?​​ - Do you find it our lack of human history odd, considering how long we have lived on this planet?​​ - With regards to notable people in history, humans seem to be completely obsessed with credit for their contributions—an interesting feature of the human ego. Taoist philosophy believes the Tao makes achievements and lays no claim to them.​​ - ​Can we reconstruct the lost works in history with AI scraping through contemporary reference scripts and searching for the influence lost writings had on known writings?​​ - That brings up the interesting point that there were likely MANY people "back there" who had amazing ideas that would have important applications today, but they didn't have the good fortune to be noticed and documented.​​ - How did the concept of zero originate and evolve in mathematical history?​​ - Do zero and infinity have the same origin?​​ - Interesting, but if I had three ducks and gave them all to you, surely the ancients must have had some concept of what that left me with?​​ - Speaking of string theory, what are for you the notable "dead-end paths" taken in the history of math/sci/tech?​​

Welcome to Episode 242 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 24 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, responds to Velleius, and we - in turn - will respond to Cotta in particular and the Skeptical argument in general. XXIV. ... But where is truth? Is it in your innumerable worlds, some of which are rising, some falling, at every moment of time? Or is it in your atomical corpuscles, which form such excellent works without the direction of any natural power or reason? But I was forgetting my liberality, which I had promised to exert in your case, and exceeding the bounds which I at first proposed to myself. Granting, then, everything to be made of atoms, what advantage is that to your argument? For we are searching after the nature of the Gods; and allowing them to be made of atoms, they cannot be eternal, because whatever is made of atoms must have had a beginning: if so, there were no Gods till there was this beginning; and if the Gods have had a beginning, they must necessarily have an end, as you have before contended when you were discussing Plato's world. Where, then, is your beatitude and immortality, in which two words you say that God is expressed, the endeavor to prove which reduces you to the greatest perplexities? For you said that God had no body, but something like body; and no blood, but something like blood. XXV. It is a frequent practice among you, when you assert anything that has no resemblance to truth, and wish to avoid reprehension, to advance something else which is absolutely and utterly impossible, in order that it may seem to your adversaries better to grant that point which has been a matter of doubt than to keep on pertinaciously contradicting you on every point: like Epicurus, who, when he found that if his atoms were allowed to descend by their own weight, our actions could not be in our own power, because their motions would be certain and necessary, invented an expedient, which escaped Democritus, to avoid necessity. He says that when the atoms descend by their own weight and gravity, they move a little obliquely. Surely, to make such an assertion as this is what one ought more to be ashamed of than the acknowledging ourselves unable to defend the proposition. His practice is the same against the logicians, who say that in all propositions in which yes or no is required, one of them must be true; he was afraid that if this were granted, then, in such a proposition as “Epicurus will be alive or dead to-morrow,” either one or the other must necessarily be admitted; therefore he absolutely denied the necessity of yes or no. Can anything show stupidity in a greater degree? Zeno, being pressed by Arcesilas, who pronounced all things to be false which are perceived by the senses, said that some things were false, but not all. Epicurus was afraid that if any one thing seen should be false, nothing could be true; and therefore he asserted all the senses to be infallible directors of truth. Nothing can be more rash than this; for by endeavoring to repel a light stroke, he receives a heavy blow. On the subject of the nature of the Gods, he falls into the same errors. While he would avoid the concretion of individual bodies, lest death and dissolution should be the consequence, he denies that the Gods have body, but says they have something like body; and says they have no blood, but something like blood."

Welcome to Episode 241 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes. Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. Today's Text XXIII. ... I allow that there are Gods. Instruct me, then, concerning their origin; inform me where they are, what sort of body, what mind, they have, and what is their course of life; for these I am desirous of knowing. You attribute the most absolute power and efficacy to atoms. Out of them you pretend that everything is made. But there are no atoms, for there is nothing without body; every place is occupied by body, therefore there can be no such thing as a vacuum or an atom. XXIV. I advance these principles of the naturalists without knowing whether they are true or false; yet they are more like truth than those statements of yours; for they are the absurdities in which Democritus, or before him Leucippus, used to indulge, saying that there are certain light corpuscles—some smooth, some rough, some round, some square, some crooked and bent as bows—which by a fortuitous concourse made heaven and earth, without the influence of any natural power. This opinion, C. Velleius, you have brought down to these our times; and you would sooner be deprived of the greatest advantages of life than of that authority; for before you were acquainted with those tenets, you thought that you ought to profess yourself an Epicurean; so that it was necessary that you should either embrace these absurdities or lose the philosophical character which you had taken upon you; and what could bribe you to renounce the Epicurean opinion? Nothing, you say, can prevail on you to forsake the truth and the sure means of a happy life. But is that the truth? for I shall not contest your happy life, which you think the Deity himself does not enjoy unless he languishes in idleness. But where is truth? Is it in your innumerable worlds, some of which are rising, some falling, at every moment of time? Or is it in your atomical corpuscles, which form such excellent works without the direction of any natural power or reason? But I was forgetting my liberality, which I had promised to exert in your case, and exceeding the bounds which I at first proposed to myself. Granting, then, everything to be made of atoms, what advantage is that to your argument? For we are searching after the nature of the Gods; and allowing them to be made of atoms, they cannot be eternal, because whatever is made of atoms must have had a beginning: if so, there were no Gods till there was this beginning; and if the Gods have had a beginning, they must necessarily have an end, as you have before contended when you were discussing Plato's world. Where, then, is your beatitude and immortality, in which two words you say that God is expressed, the endeavor to prove which reduces you to the greatest perplexities? For you said that God had no body, but something like body; and no blood, but something like blood.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero's work, On The Nature Of The Gods, which critically examines Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptic perspectives on matters of theology and cosmology Specifically it the Epicurean Velleius' criticisms of various ancient philosophers viewpoints on the divine. These include a number of pre-Socratics, such as: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Alcmæo of Croton, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Protagoras, Democritus, and Diogenes of Apollonia. He also criticises the views of post-Socratics like Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates, Heraclides of Pontus, and Theophrastus To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Cicero's On The Nature Of Gods - https://amzn.to/3JITSZc

This episode was fated before the dawn of time. Some reference to the works of Gabriel Marcel, Democritus, Epictetus, and some others I've forgotten. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/1243386908/support

Welcome to Episode 232 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com. Today we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius. Today's Text XII. ... What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him? Diogenes of Apollonia looks upon the air to be a Deity. But what sense can the air have? or what divine form can be attributed to it? It would be tedious to show the uncertainty of Plato's opinion; for, in his Timæus, he denies the propriety of asserting that there is one great father or creator of the world; and, in his book of Laws, he thinks we ought not to make too strict an inquiry into the nature of the Deity. And as for his statement when he asserts that God is a being without any body—what the Greeks call ἀσώματος—it is certainly quite unintelligible how that theory can possibly be true; for such a God must then necessarily be destitute of sense, prudence, and pleasure; all which things are comprehended in our notion of the Gods. He likewise asserts in his Timæus, and in his Laws, that the world, the heavens, the stars, the mind, and those Gods which are delivered down to us from our ancestors, constitute the Deity. These opinions, taken separately, are apparently false; and, together, are directly inconsistent with each other. Xenophon has committed almost the same mistakes, but in fewer words. In those sayings which he has related of Socrates, he introduces him disputing the lawfulness of inquiring into the form of the Deity, and makes him assert the sun and the mind to be Deities: he represents him likewise as affirming the being of one God only, and at another time of many; which are errors of almost the same kind which I before took notice of in Plato.

Welcome to Episode 231 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.comToday we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.Additional versions can be found here:Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of LibertyLacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by RackhamGutenberg.org version by CD Yonge Today's TextXII. Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures as divine, from which he thinks that all things were made. Yet it is evident that they have a beginning, that they decay, and that they are void of all sense.Protagoras did not seem to have any idea of the real nature of the Gods; for he acknowledged that he was altogether ignorant whether there are or are not any, or what they are.What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him?

I have been a student of stoicism for a long time. Ancient stoic philosophy highlights euthymia, inner serenity, and cheerfulness, as pivotal for a purposeful life. According to Democritus, it entails a calm soul, untouched by fear or passions. Seneca expands on this, framing euthymia as belief in oneself and trust in the chosen path, shielding against doubt and distractions. Equally important is equanimity, a state of mental balance amidst life's fluctuations. Cultivating both virtues fosters resilience, clarity, and inner peace. By embracing euthymia and equanimity, we navigate challenges with steadfast determination, paving the way for a fulfilling and purpose-driven life.

fWotD Episode 2563: Leucippus Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Saturday, 11 May 2024 is Leucippus.Leucippus (; Λεύκιππος, Leúkippos; fl. 5th century BCE) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He is traditionally credited as the founder of atomism, which he developed with his student Democritus. Leucippus divided the world into two entities: atoms, indivisible particles that make up all things, and the void, the nothingness that exists between the atoms. He developed his philosophy as a response to the Eleatics, who believed that all things are one and the void does not exist. Leucippus's ideas were influential in ancient and Renaissance philosophy. His philosophy was a precursor to modern atomic theory, but the two only superficially resemble one another.Leucippus's atoms come in infinitely many forms and exist in constant motion, creating a deterministic world in which everything is caused by the collisions of atoms. Leucippus described the beginning of the cosmos as a vortex of atoms that formed the Earth, the Sun, the stars, and other celestial bodies. As Leucippus considered atoms and the void to be infinite, he presumed that other worlds must exist as cosmoses are formed elsewhere. Leucippus and Democritus described the soul as an arrangement of spherical atoms, which are cycled through the body through respiration and create thought and sensory input.The only records of Leucippus come from Aristotle and Theophrastus, ancient philosophers who lived after him, and little is known of his life. Most scholars agree that Leucippus existed, but some have questioned this, instead attributing his ideas purely to Democritus. Contemporary philosophers rarely distinguish their respective ideas. Two works are attributed to Leucippus (The Great World System and On Mind), but all of his writing has been lost with the exception of one sentence.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:01 UTC on Saturday, 11 May 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Leucippus on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Nicole Standard.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1175, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: The Original 31 Flavors 1: Sour item that precedes Crisp, Custard and Sherbet in 3 of Baskin-Robbins' original 31 flavors. Lemon. 2: Varieties of this flavor included French and Burnt Almond. Vanilla. 3: This traditional Christmas drink was available. Egg Nog. 4: Flavors included this type of "Stick" (but not this type of "Patty"). Peppermint. 5: Nuts to you! and marshmallows, too, with this alliterative original flavor. Rocky Road. Round 2. Category: Wintry Reading 1: In a kids' book, on a snowy day Nicki loses this item of clothing, just like the 3 little kittens. mittens. 2: Dostoyevsky's autobiographical novel "The House of the Dead" has been published with the subtitle "or, Prison Life" here--brrr!. Siberia. 3: The 2019 book "The Enchanted Forest" is a tie-in with this long-awaited animated sequel. Frozen 2. 4: Set in Iceland, the sixth novel in the Detective Erlendur series is titled not "Frostbite" but this condition. hypothermia. 5: It's 1954 and tensions are high on an island with a lot of Japanese Americans in David Guterson's novel "Snow Falling on" these. Cedars. Round 3. Category: Ancient Science 1: The ancient Sumerian number system, based on 60, is still used today to measure this. time. 2: Around 400 B.C. Democritus proposed that all matter is composed of these tiny units. atoms. 3: Considered 1st universal genius, this student of Plato believed goats breathed through their ears. Aristotle. 4: Chinese general Huang-ti used a lodestone as one of these around 300 B.C., perhaps by floating it in a bowl. a compass. 5: Delta city with automatic door openers, washing machines, and a world-famous library. Alexandria. Round 4. Category: London On Film 1: Guinness says this current resident of 10 Downing Street was 1st portrayed on film in "For Your Eyes Only". Margaret Thatcher. 2: R. Chandler's novel was set in L.A., but this '77 remake was "curiously and ineffectively set in London". The Big Sleep. 3: In "My Fair Lady", Eliza Doolittle peddled her posies here, in front of the opera house. Covent Garden. 4: The bird woman in "Mary Poppins" sells feed for birds in front of this church build by Wren. St. Paul's. 5: 1973 film in which George Segal trysts with Glenda Jackson in a Garrard St. flat. A Touch of Class. Round 5. Category: He Was Senator And President 1: Though he served Penn. in the Senate from 1834 to 1845, he supported pro-slavery Southern positions; he didn't get better as pres.. Buchanan. 2: His nickname "Tricky Dick" dates back to the 1950s California campaign that put him in the Senate. Nixon. 3: Though the Senate failed by one vote to de-president him, his later return to the body was met with flowers and applause. (Andrew) Johnson. 4: This Ohioan found the Senate "far more to my liking than" being pres. could be; scandal and death in office followed. Warren G. Harding. 5: This New Yorker and future president joined the Senate in 1821 and soon led the fight against imprisonment for debt. Martin Van Buren. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

In this episode, we continue our discussion of the Pre-Platonics, and cover the ideas of Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. The episode begins with a brief recap of the previous philosophers and the dialogue up to this point. After considering the remaining Pre-Platonics, I have some brief concluding remarks in which I attempt to make sense of the entire picture as Nietzsche lays it out in this unfinished essay.

Here is where we come to the inversion known as ex nihilo, which means, “out of nothing.” If you are like most modern people, Latin phrases may make you uncomfortable, which is why they are probably good for you. They can jostle us out of our spiritual slumber. But this is one that you should know about for mental health reasons. Prior to God, there is nothing. This was discussed briefly in the previous inversion, but it is so important that it requires an extended look. What does this mean? Consider a woodworker who wishes to build a birdhouse. To do so, he needs wood, nails, perhaps glue, a saw, a tape measure, and a few other things. To create, we need material that already exists. God, on the other hand, does not. He creates from nothing. The book of Genesis states that God is the beginning of all things. Nothing is before God, not even chaos. There is a reference to a watery, formless void in the verse that follows, but God is prior to this amorphous blob. Also, this “formless void” does not get a proper noun like the Greeks give to “Chaos,” as if it were an American Gladiator. The formless void is just a watery meh. It's nothing. But good luck thinking of “nothing” because we cannot with our finite abilities. Nothing is incomprehensible to us. Ghostbusters did a nice job of showing that we cannot think of “nothing.” The monster tells the Ghostbusters to “Choose the form of ‘The Destructor.'” Venkman then tells his buddies: “Empty your heads! Don't think of anything!” But poor Ray can't think of nothing. He can only think of something. That's when he thinks of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and says, “It just popped in there!” Then the Ghostbusters do battle with a giant marshmallow and make cinema history (and flatten spiritual things into the material realm, but I digress - that's for a later inversion). We cannot think of nothing. We can try to contemplate it, but we can't achieve it, because even if we believe we've found the nothing, we are either thinking of God or fooled, because nothing existed before God. He is first. The Buddhists aim their meditation at nothing and think of the self as god. Catholics do the opposite. Catholics focus prayer and meditation toward God, who created everything out of nothing, including us - and most importantly - perhaps the most critical thing of all to remember is this: we are not God. Repeat after me: “I am not God.” And this is why Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible at the very root; the first principles are in opposition. Buddhism rejects a creator and rejects creation ex nihilo.That's what this inversion is about, as are all the inversions. Not only does God's creation out of nothing disagree with Buddhist thought, but it also rejects Greek and Sumerian myth systems, as well as many modern pseudo-scientific theories where the universe was created from pre-existing parts. Today, some will claim that the atoms have always existed, but the Jew, Muslim, or Christian rebuts this by saying, “I know who made the atoms. They did not always exist.” In ancient times, if some would say that water was first, Abraham would say, “I know who made the water.” In the Sumerian creation mythology, water is first and the gods come later. It's not surprising that we might think of water, the sea, as a primordial source of life, since water supports life, but water alone cannot bring life. The substance of water can quench our thirst or destroy us with a flood. It is a healer and a destroyer. But water itself is not “Being”. Water cannot create life. Water cannot create planets. Water cannot create the protons and electrons is requires to be water. The old myths fail in light of modern science, but creation “out of nothing” does not. Ex nihilo outlasts even science, because God made all things that make science possible. He created science by creating. All of it depends on his being and his act of creation. A scientist has no paper to write without the atoms, just as a woodworker can build no house without the wood that God made. This idea of water is associated with Chaos in various myth models, and the modern arguments of “which came first” do not sound very different from the Sumerian and Greek disorder of where Being came from. Water is not Being, water is material. In other words, it is created by something prior to it. There is nothing before God in Genesis. Not water. Not time. Not a chaos monster. Not an island. Not a pie shop. Nothing. God is first. We cannot describe God, but we can know what he is not, and he is not merely water. To mention something as being prior to God is to misunderstand why God tells Moses his name is “I AM”. In other words, God is “Being Itself.” This first Being must precede everything, even chaos and formlessness. This is the road to mental health. Why modern psychiatry has not yet caught on to this is simultaneously sad and comical. Listening to the modern cures for mental health that exclude God is like watching a coach execute a play repeatedly that hits a brick wall of defensive lineman, when a simple bootleg would bring an easy touchdown. When Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” and when he says “I am the vine” and when he says “I am the bread of life,” he is saying, “I AM” just as God said to Moses at the burning bush. This “I AM” cannot be stressed enough, and if I fail in this series to fully hammer home the importance of understanding the first “Being” of God, then I too am like the quarterback running the failing dive play instead of the rollout bootleg for the touchdown. For this reason, I do believe Big Pharma fears a comeback of creation out of nothing, but really, I wish they would sell a sugar pill called “ex nihilo” and use their marketing prowess to sell it, because they truly would change people's lives with something better than the dubious SSRI pills they sell. But the more people I meet who believe in the idea of “ex nihilo” have astonishing sanity and positivity toward life. Please, if you're out there Pfizer, Merck, hear my plea: start selling ex nihilo, and make one of those ads where people are prancing about in clover fields, full of joy, but be sure to include a picture of them kneeling in humility before God, otherwise its just another snake oil. The same reason SSRIs fail to fix anything is the same reason that “whiskey ain't workin' anymore,” as the country singers say. Pills and booze are band-aids for a spiritual malady. The inversion of marketing with pills and booze is to pretend that something man-made can fill the void, the sense of nothing, when only one thing can do that, and it is God who created ex nihilo. The many forms of nihilism today extend directly from this rejection of God as the first being, because we often think that nothing existed before God. Modern philosophers and psychologists got stuck in neutral over this issue, with the big names all being atheists, like Heidegger and Sartre and Freud and Jung and Foucault. Is it any wonder that depression is at an all-time high, when the replacement for certainty in the rock of God is a watery void of endless therapy and “vibes”? Can anyone seriously struggle to understand why the “Self” is a crappy god to believe in, when one seasonal cold or inflamed elbow joint can render us weak? When we are unsure that God was first, and before him there was nothing, then we have a gap in our consciousness that nothing cannot fill. In particular, the Self cannot solve it, nor can serotonin. I call this giant, gaping void the “Big Empty” (shoutout to Stone Temple Pilots). And the Big Empty can only be filled by God. The inversion here is that God existed, has always existed, and will exist forever. Once again, the nature of time matters for sanity in knowing that there was a beginning, and being came from God, who preceded all things. That God created “out of nothing” means that you can stop worrying about everything, because quite literally “he has the whole world in his hands.” The children's song is not just a feel-good happy-clappy preschool ditty: it is the key to mental health - because God does indeed have the whole world, the wind and the rain, the little bitty baby, you and me brother/sister, and yes, even ev'rybody in his hands. Why? Because there was nothing before God, and so there is nothing without God. Thus, with God, who created all things, there is also nothing to fear, because he created all things and saw that it was good (more on that later). Because of this, even death is not something to fear, because he has the whole world in his hands. This is also important because when the devil tempts Jesus to make bread from stones, Jesus answers, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'” Thus the Word of God feeds us, because it is the source of everything, the pipeline that nourishes all life. The tree of life is rooted in God. The tree of knowledge leads to death. A simple lesson in making choices is to choose the tree of life over the tree of knowledge. Knowledge is a like side hobby, whereas the tree of life is where the joy of connection to the source never ceases. There is nothing before God speaks all into existence. This should comfort you. This should give you focus, not anxiety. We cannot actually think of “nothing” so the closest thing is a formless void. This language is stunningly complex while using simple words, but “beginning,” “created,” “without form and void” - if only I could write so concisely and meaningfully, but I can't. So let's continue with the long-form non-academic journal style that a hack writer like myself loves to use. One way I try, rather pathetically, to imagine the pre-creation nothing is a painter's easel with a blank canvas on it. The canvas can be black or white to represent the absence of anything. But even then I'm not thinking of nothing, I'm thinking of a canvas. Or, I'm thinking of a space like that whitespace in which Neo trains against Morpheus in the movie The Matrix. Yet that is also not nothing, it is a three-dimensional empty space, which is something. I can dimly understand what it means to say “out of nothing, God created the heavens and the earth.” Ex nihilo is a powerful idea that gets brushed aside too easily today by those who believe that atoms always existed, or that there never was a time when the universe did not exist. The bible says that God “created” the numbers, atoms, time, three-dimensional space, and every possible thing that we can think of (or not think of). He created the heavens and the earth, which means a material and spiritual realm, thus even that which we can imagine comes from God. Angels and Elves and Orcs and Fairies and Furies are attempts by us to think of something to explain the spiritual realms, the “heavens,” and as St. Paul said, we only look through a glass darkly now, but will someday see God face to face. But we aren't prepared to do that now, not in our mortal state. To do so in this finite form would destroy us (more on that inversion to come). As created things, as creatures, we can only think in terms of time and space, we cannot think of nothing, nor can we comprehend the infinite. This is why so many people err in an understanding of God in the bible because they think of him like an idol, as something that exists in space and time. God is not like Zeus who lives in a mountain. God made the mountain and everything else out of nothing. He is the Author of all things who lives outside of his work of art, called “Creation.” Famous atheists like Bertrand Russell swing and miss on this when they compare God to objects within the universe. Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins make the same category error. God is outside of time and space, because he created time and space. Ideally, everyone would read the opening to the Catechism of the Catholic Church so we can get our terms straight, because like the word “Love” today, people mean very different things by it. We've flattened “Love” into one word when it can mean four different things - sex/passion, fraternal love, familial love, or agape (total self-giving). Few people say “Love” and clarify what kind. We do the same thing with God and “create.” We are speaking in babbling tongues to each other even when using the same language of English, hence the confusion. When we create, we use existing materials. When God created, he did not. He made the materials - including the materials that make us and allow us to create. He made the immaterial things, too. Stephen Hawking wrote a book called God Created the Integers. This is a terrific title. I almost tip over with joy, for Hawking is so close to faith in the source of Being, but he worshipped the nuts and bolts of the creation that he studied instead of the Creator. He was in hot pursuit of the truth, and was close, yet so far. In his quest for the holy grail of the origins of time and space, he was bringing the language of mathematics so near to theology that he almost wrote a love letter to God. Math is indeed one of the places where our finite minds can get close to this idea of ex nihilo. To say, “God created the integers” is to realize that when God first spoke, he did include the number “1” because before that there was zero - as in nothing. For God to create the number 1 is to create “out of nothing,” and without the number “1” there could never be such a thing as the number “2”, or “3”, or any number beyond. All numbers can only come from God who is infinite, and like the infinite, is comprehensible and incomprehensible at the same time. Physics is not even far back enough in the chain, because its laws could be different than they are. But math basics cannot be different. God could have made the gravitational constant different and thus changed the universe. But the integers cannot lie, nor can God. 2+2 must always be 4, and that applies to both God and humans. Mathematics is one path to God, oddly enough. Who would have thought the nerds in math league could be mystics? With mathematics, to contemplate the Integers as a creation of God is to get close to the concept of ex nihilo - creation “out of nothing.” For even the Integers did not exist before God made them. Stephen Hawking, even if he didn't believe, had so many gifts, that it always seems worth sending up a prayer for his soul (and for the many other seekers who never came home) just in case Purgatory is his residence. He appeared to pass away with the same rejection of Bertrand Russell on his lips, saying, “Not enough evidence, God, sorry.” Perhaps he sealed his eternity by the rejection of God, by dismissing the first commandment, but surely there is hope in his turning in the last hour, to confirm his belief in who “Created the Integers.” This is why the danger of knowledge can lead to pride over humility, and pride is the false guide of so many souls. St. Dismas and St. Gertrude: pray for Stephen Hawking, and pray for us all. In short, we are finite - we are in a box called the universe, or space-time. Yet there is a spiritual reality that we can feel, know, sense, and even reach somehow in prayer. Because we are creatures, no amount of LSD or marijuana will allow us to escape our state of being, even though we know there is another dimension, or perhaps more than one. Although trippy drug experiences may seem transcendent, it can never grasp what it means to be God. Worse, drug experiences are all about pulling God toward the self, and not the reception of God's grace. We cannot bootstrap our way to God, we have to be silent to let the still, small voice enter our ears. This is why prayer works, because when you pray, you need to stop trying and just be. Because what is “Being”? It is a connection to God. When Jesus said, “I am the vine and you are the branches,” he was telling us that “to be” is to connect to the source of all being. This is why Christians who are born again make no sense to unbelievers - they have a life in them that is inexplicable. In other creation stories, matter exists before creation, which seems odd until you hear modern people say that “the atoms have just always existed.” This is an echo of the Greek philosopher Democritus who felt that atoms and motion were eternal. Thus the writer of Genesis shouts, “No! Atoms did not exist before God. Before God was nothing, not atoms, not photons, not electrons, not strings, and not even the greatest invention of all, not even ice cream.” Again, we pass over this inversion with a yawn, despite the fact that like the first inversion, time, this inversion dumps a whole pantheon of gods and assumptions into the dumpster. Zeus? Get serious. Gaia? Take a number. All of the Canaanite, Egyptian, Greek, Sumerian, and Roman gods are booted out of the Biblical worldview. And I say good riddance, because it is much more fun to read Ovid as literature anyway. However, the ancient writers of Genesis did not have the luxury of looking at Moloch or Zeus as literary figures that explained phenomena in the world. No, this was a deadly bet in the declaration of the creation story, because the people of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses did not go with the flow when it came to creation. They did not believe in the maxim, “When in Rome, do as the Romans.” (I realize that's an anachronism). To say, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is to elevate God, the one true God, over all the human-like gods of their surrounding peoples. To give an example of what this would be like today, consider how people react when someone takes a knee during the National Anthem during an NFL game. Or, you can test this today, simply by posting on social media: “Abortion kills a human life.” This upsets the worldview of others. Overzealous patriots worship the flag, and those who worship the self do not believe in the souls of certain people groups, especially the unborn. To speak of God as a reality today still invites anger. The twentieth century had more violence than any century in history and repeatedly the Jews and Catholics were killed for their association with belief in God. Right now in Nigeria or Nicaragua or Israel, your declaration of faith is a deadly statement. That is what Genesis is doing - it is giving a voice to that view, that opinion. It is inverting the idea of what God is. It is asserting a concept of God that makes all the king's horses and all the king's men look foolish for offering sacrifices up to absurd idols. Our current idols and religions are really not that different from Moloch or Zeus. What is most important in this inversion is that it tips over the canoe in which Zeus, Protagoras, and Richard Dawkins were all riding in, paddling backward in their fictions. Why is this inversion so powerful? This is a threatening implication because creation out of nothing kicks the stool out from faulty origin stories and causes them to tumble. Most myths, including ones from modern science, are attempts to invert the worldview of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus. They claim that water or atoms or a turtle was first. The Jewish and Christian origin story says that there was no-thing, not one thing, before Being Itself, and that Being is more commonly known as God. And how mighty a being he must be to craft such delights, like integers, atoms, time, gravity, the nuclear forces, light, water, earth, fire, wind, and (much later) pie shops - all out of nothing. That is a creator before whom we must kneel in awe and wonder and love and a healthy fear. Poets like William Blake understood this wonder. When he wrote about the fierce beauty of a tiger with its stripes, we can get a sense of the power, depth, and stunning awesomeness of God's ability to make things:Tyger Tyger, burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry?He is asking: “Who or what could possibly create such a thing as a tiger?” The answer is God. Once this is understood, we can also begin to know why the Proverb says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” For it is only infinite power and glory that can do such a thing as creation ex nihilo.Further reading: Isn't Creation Ex Nihilo Logically Impossible?The Case for Creation from NothingChurch fathers comments on ex nihilo This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit whydidpetersink.substack.com

In this episode we discuss a pair of ancient Greek philosophers whose relationship was akin to that of Socrates and Plato, but whose insights on the microcosmic nature of nature was so prescient that it would ultimately be passed over for hundreds of years. Due to a lack of surviving work from Leucippus the episode is focused largely on Democritus who appears to have exceeded his mentor in both scope and discipline. For more information on the episodes in this series, visit my website:https://www.ronvoller.com/Support the show

Born into a well off family, Democritus had access to education, which was a privilege in ancient Greece. However, it was his travels that broadened his intellectual horizons. Democritus embarked on extensive journeys to Egypt, Persia, India, and even Ethiopia, during which he acquired knowledge from different cultures and absorbed various philosophical ideas. These experiences significantly influenced his own philosophical views. #philosophy #democritus #atoms

Hello everyone! This week on The Cosmic Companion, we are pondering why Greece is the Word, discussing the birth of science in the ancient world, and what it means for us today. Later on, we'll be talking with Kenny Curtis and Jillian Hughes, hosts of the Greeking Out podcast, and authors of a new book of the same name, from Nat Geo Kids.Once upon a time, in the sunny lands of Ancient Greece more than 25 centuries ago, a bunch of curious folks decided to ask some big questions. "Why does the sun rise?" "What are stars?" "Why do planets move?". They were tired of attributing everything to the whims of gods. Much like overgrown toddlers, they wanted ANSWERS, and they wanted them NOW! (errr… then)...Jillian Hughes and Kenny Curtis appear on The Cosmic Companion 7 October 2023. Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution 2023 The Cosmic CompanionThe Greeks had a knack for asking questions that were way ahead of their time. More than 2,500 years before our age, a woman named Aspasia was known for holding gatherings of some of the greatest minds of her day, including Plato and Socrates. A gifted conversationalist, tales tell that she founded a school for girls, a groundbreaking advance for the era.  Democritus of Abdera had the crazy idea that all matter was composed of individual bits, which we call atoms. Building on the work of his mentor, one day around 425 BCE, he may have just been walking around, minding his own business when he thought, "What if everything is made up of tiny, invisible particles?" Boom! The concept of atoms was born.Then there was Pythagoras who had a thing for triangles. He may have been sitting around one day, doodling triangles in the sand when he realized that the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Mind blown! And thus, the Pythagorean theorem came into existence.During the 4th Century BCE, Hippocrates took one look at medicine and said, "This needs some work." [Not my words exactly, but… Yeah, sure.]He insisted that diseases were not punishments from angry gods but had natural causes that could be studied and treated. This revolutionary idea paved the way for modern medicine.Not long after, Agnodice of Athens practiced medicine dressed as a man, at a time when women were not allowed to be doctors. Thanks to her, laws in Athens preventing women from becoming doctors were overturned. [AGN: You're welcome!]But it wasn't all work and no play for these ancient scientists. Legend has it that Archimedes discovered his principle while taking a bath. He noticed that the water level rose as he got into his tub and realized this could be used to determine volume. He was so excited that he ran through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!" (which means "I found it!"). Now that's what I call a eureka moment!The birth of science in ancient Greece is a story of curiosity, ingenuity and occasional naked sprinting through the streets. The ancient Greeks might not have had all the answers, but they sure knew how to ask interesting questions!With questions come answers, and for a few of each, we're talking with Jillian Hughes and Kenny Curtis about their new podcast and book, Greeking Out, from Nat Geo Kids. ---Now. Let's talk about our friend Pythagoras. Remember him? The triangle guy? Well, his theorem is still used today in everything from architecture to video games. Yes, you heard it right! Every time you play a game of Fortnite or Minecraft, Pythagoras is there, making sure everything looks just right.Next up is Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine. His idea that diseases have natural causes was a game-changer. Today, doctors across the globe follow his principles. So, the next time medicine helps you out, remember to say a silent thank you to Hippocrates (but maybe skip on the leeches and bloodletting).And who could forget Archimedes? His principle helps us design ships and submarines. And yes, he's also the reason why your bathwater rises when you get in. So, the next time you're enjoying a relaxing bath, spare a thought for Archimedes (and maybe keep your "Eureka!" moment to yourself).Last but not least, Democritus' atomic theory is at the heart of modern physics and chemistry. It's why we can build everything from skyscrapers to smartphones. So every time you send a text or take a selfie, remember that it's thanks, in part, to a Greek guy who lived over 2000 years ago.So there you have it! The Ancient Greeks might be long gone, but their discoveries are still very much alive and kicking. It just goes to show that great science never goes out of style!Next week on The Cosmic Companion, we look at Global Warming: It's Not Just Hot Air!. We'll look at the science of climate change, and how our world could change in the coming decades. We'll be talking with Elizabeth Rusch, author of The Twenty-One, telling the story of a group of young people using the legal system to help reverse climate change.Make sure to join us, starting on 14 October, anywhere you see or hear The Cosmic Companion. While you are there, go ahead and do all that sharing and subscribing stuff. It'd be pretty cool if you did. Yup. Pretty cool indeed… Clear skies!---[COLD OPEN]So this is the future. Interesting.Well, good evening, everyone! I must say, when I was told I'd be time-traveling, I expected to see the future of Greece, not to land in 'Grease.' However, I am not entirely to blame, by Jove!Here are "The Top 10 Reasons I Thought Grease was Greece:"#10 When my agent said he booked me on a tour of Grease, I thought he said Greece. A natural mistake.#9 I thought I saw young people in togas and a group of Spartan warriors. It turns out they were wearing "poodle skirts" and "leather jackets."#8 All the spontaneous singing and dancing made me think I was near a Greek theatre.#7 I saw chariots without horses. I'm a scientist. Studying those was just natural. #6 One of the horseless chariots had lightning bolts on it. I naturally believed it to be a chariot of Zeus.[ZEUS APPEARSNo. Not me. I wouldn't drive anything that ostentatious.FADE]#5 The sight of people eating in a diner reminded me of symposiums, though I have been told that wine has been replaced with milkshakes. Those are pretty good, honestly. Have you ever tried a flavor called "chocolate?" #4 Hearing about a beauty school dropout, and seeing a woman surrounded by other women in pink, I naturally believed them to be Aphrodite and her priestesses. She still owes me 10 drachma. #3 Watching a dance-off at the local gymnasium made me think of athletic competitions in Ancient Greece. Plato would have loved it.#2 Coming across what I thought was an open-air play, it turned out to be something called a "drive-in movie." I think those are going to be pretty popular in a few decades. #1 And, the NUMBER ONE REASON I Thought Grease was Greece is… [DRUM ROLL] Seeing this teenage drama unfold, I mistook it for a Greek tragedy.OK. I'm ready to go back. Send James Maynard in, already…[FADE. OFF SCREEN:-unintelligible-What do you MEAN the chariot flies? That's ridiculous.]Clear skies! JamesThe Cosmic Companion w/ James Maynard is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Cosmic Companion w/ James Maynard at thecosmiccompanion.substack.com/subscribe

Today we're diving deep into the heart of matter itself as we explore the captivating world of atoms. You might think you know atoms from your school days, but trust me, there's so much more to discover. The concept of the atom has been a cornerstone of scientific understanding. But do you know who really rocked the atomic world? None other than the legendary physicist Richard Feynman. In this episode, we're shining a spotlight on Feynman's groundbreaking work and his take on the atomic hypothesis.   Imagine this: a cataclysm wipes out all scientific knowledge, and only one sentence survives to guide the next generation. What would that sentence be? We'll ponder on that mind-boggling question and explore the various aspects of Democritus' profound thoughts on the atom, the first concept in human thought that introduced the unseeable and immeasurable. Intrigued? You should be! Tune in for all the juicy details.   * Now offering workshops! Learn more at https://www.shapeshiftedu.com   * Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating and written review!  

This interview was recorded for the GOTO Book Club.gotopia.tech/bookclubJohan Vos - Author of "Quantum Computing in Action" & Co Founder at GluonPreben Thorø - CTO at Trifork SwitzerlandDESCRIPTIONQuantum Computing is on the rise. Do you want to know why you shouldn't wait to program quantum computers until they are available for everyone? Johan Vos will tell you in this GOTO Book Club episode. Watch the teaser now.The interview is based on Johan's book "Quantum Computing in Action"Read the full transcription of the interview hereRECOMMENDED BOOKSJohan Vos • Quantum Computing in ActionJack D. Hidary • Quantum Computing: An Applied ApproachSarah C. Kaiser & Christopher Grenade • Learn Quantum Computing with Python & Q#Venkateswaran Kasirajan • Fundamentals of Quantum ComputingBrian Clegg • Quantum Computing: The Transformative Technology of the Qubit RevolutionScott Aaronson • Quantum Computing Since DemocritusWilliam (Chuck) Easttom • Quantum Computing FundamentalsWolfgang Scherer • Mathematics of Quantum ComputingTwitterLinkedInFacebookLooking for a unique learning experience?Attend the next GOTO conference near you! Get your ticket: gotopia.techSUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL - new videos posted almost daily

We have Ancient Greeks including Xenophanes, Democritus and Apollonius to thank for some of the ideas that underpin our study of astronomy

What does eternal recurrence mean in the historical sense? Nietzsche invites us to explore that question in his raising of the Problem of Science, and the notion of conflict as central to life. Today, in the penultimate episode of the season, we'll take a look into a section from Will to Power called "The History of European Nihilism", in which Nietzsche takes on the history of Europe from the perspective of his cultural/moral analysis, and charts the history of the descent into materialism as it played out in Enlightenment Europe. In his Pre-Platonic lectures, Nietzsche suggests a parallel between the project of Greek philosophy, and the progression that played out in the centuries of the Enlightenment. The Pre-Platonic Greeks experimented with materialist philosophy, eventually culminating in the atomism of Democritus and the arrival of Socrates, the ultimate logician - soon, the values of their traditions, and their long-held superstitions came to be questionable. The values of the society were undermined, and a crisis of nihilism set it. Nietzsche believes that this played out over the course of several centuries in Europe: in the form of the Reformation, then the scientific dawning of the Enlightenment rationalism with Descartes at the forefront. He comments on many of the figures we have covered this season, such as Kant, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and others, as manifestations of the spirit of their times, who signified shifts or turning points in the European psyche. He reimagines Kant as a sentimentalist towards the concept of duty, a twin spirit with the moralistic Rousseau, who rebelled against the self-legislating rationalism of the 17th century and instead opted to be guided by feeling. Now, in Nietzsche's 19th century, he sees the ascendance of a more honest yet more gloomy period of European thought. The animalian in man is fully uncovered and embraced, and man becomes understood as a historical creature. This has dire consequences, bringing on the dissolution of society and the disbelief in all past metaphysical and moral comforts. But, as a result, the European psyche has the opportunity to enter a period of "Active Nihilism", and overcome the previous dogmas as part of a revaluation of all values. In spite of his predictions of coming great wars, Nietzsche is hopeful that the conditions of decay will lay infinite possibilities before us for the future. Contrary to many who warn of degeneration or decadence, Nietzsche cleaves to the conviction that with decay comes new growth, and that periods of dissolution are always periods of great creativity. This is, somewhat paradoxically, one of the more hopeful passages of Nietzsche, which acquiesces both to his belief in eternal recurrence, as much to the hope for something new in the future. Episode art: George Frederic Watts - Hope

“Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are; and of the things that are not, that they are not.” -Protagoras, fragment 80 (the Homo Mensura fragment) “Through logos humanity truly is the measure of everything. Only that which can be experienced as something is, and that which can not be thus experienced is not.” -Mats Rosengren's updated, clearer version of Protagoras' fragment ‘When a cave supports a mountain on rocks deeply eroded from within, not made by human hand, but excavated to such size by natural causes, your soul is seized by a religious apprehension.' -Seneca, quoted in Caves and the Ancient Greek Mind by Yulia Ustinova (2009) “Genuinely, we know nothing: the truth is in the depth” -Democritus, fragment 117

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Seven of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. Each week we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics. We're now in the process of a series of podcasts intended to provide a general overview of Epicurean philosophy based on the organizational structure employed by Norman DeWitt in his book "Epicurus and His Philosophy."This week we discuss a series of Points and Counterpoints which Norman DeWitt describes as "True Opinions / False Opinions" about Epicurus:True Opinions - False OpinionsEpicurus' Place In Greek Philosophy:True: Epicurus came immediately after Plato (idealism; absolutism) and Pyrrho (the skeptic). Platonism and Skepticism were among Epicurus' chief abominations.False: Epicurus taught in response to Stoicism. (False because Epicurean philosophy was fully developed before Zeno began teaching Stoicism.)Epicurus' Attitude Toward Learning:True: Epicurus was well educated and a trained thinker.False: Epicurus was an ignoramus and an enemy of all culture.Epicurus' Goal For Himself And His Work:True: Epicurus was not only a philosopher but a moral reformer rebelling against his teachers.False: Epicurus was nothing more than a copycat who was ungrateful to his teachers.Epicurus' Place in Greek Scientific Thought:True: Epicurus was returning to the Ionian tradition of thought which had been interrupted by Socrates and Plato. Epicurus was an Anti-Platonist and a penetrating critic of Platonism.False: Epicurean scientific thought simply copied Democritus.Epicurus' Role As a Systematizer:True: As with Herbert Spencer or Auguste Comte, Epicurus was attempting a synthesis and critique of all prior philosophical thought.False: Epicurus was a sloppy and unorganized thinker whose system-building is not worth attention.Epicurus' Dogmatism:True: Epicurus' strength was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, actuated by a passion for inquiry to find certainty, and a detestation of skepticism, which he imputed even to Plato.False: Epicurus' demerit was that he promulgated a dogmatic philosophy, because he renounced inquiry.Epicurus' View of Truth:True: Epicurus exalted Nature as the norm of truth, revolting against Plato, who had preached “reason” as the norm and considered “Reason” to have a divine existence of its own. Epicurus studied and taught the nature and use of sensations, and the role in determining that which we consider to be true.False: Epicurus was an empiricist in the modern sense, declaring sensation to be the only source of knowledge and all sensations to be “true.”Epicurus' Method For Determining Truth:True: Epicurus taught reasoning chiefly by deduction. For example, atoms cannot be observed directly; their existence and properties must be determined by deduction, and the principles thereby deduced serve as standards for assessing truth. In this Epicurus was adopting the procedures of Euclid and partying company with both Plato and the Ionian scientists.False: Epicurus was a strict empiricist and taught reasoning mainly by induction.Epicurus' As A Man of ActionTrue: Epicurus was the first missionary philosophy. Epicurus was by disposition combative and he was by natural gifts a leader, organizer, and campaigner.False: Epicurus was effeminate and a moral invalid; a passivist who taught retirement from and non-engagement with the world.Epicurus' View of Self-InterestTrue: Epicureanism was the first world philosophy, acceptable to both Greek and barbarian. Epicurus taught that we should make friends wherever possible.False: Epicurus was a totally egoistic hedonist ruled solely by a narrow view of his own self-interest.Epicurus Is Of Little Relevance to the Development of ChristianityTrue: Epicurus reoriented emphasis from political virtues to social virtues, and developed a wider viewpoint applicable to all humanity.False: Epicurus was an enemy of all religion and there is no trace of his influence in the “New Testament.”

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Two of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.This week we return to Diogenes of Oinanda and we examine fragments relating to the nature of reality, and Epicurus' difference of opinion with Democritus on the subject. Now let's read today's text, fragments 5, 6, and 7 as translated by Martin Ferguson Smith:Fr. 5[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find? Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.Fr. 6 [As for the first bodies, also] called elements, which on the one hand have subsisted from the beginning [and] are indestructible, and [on the other hand] generate things, we shall explain what [they are] after we have demolished the theories of others. Well, Heraclitus of Ephesus identified fire as elemental, Thales of Miletus water, Diogenes of Apollonia and Anaximenes air, Empedocles of Acragas fire and air and water and earth, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae the homoeomeries of each thing, and the Stoics matter and God. As for Democritus of Abdera, he did well to identify atoms as elemental, but since his conception of them was in some respects mistaken, he will be considered in the exposition of our theories. Now we shall bring charges against the said men, not out of contentiousness towards them, but because we wish the truth to be safeguarded; and we shall deal with Heraclitus first, since he has been placed first on our list. You are mistaken, Heraclitus, in saying that fire is elemental, for neither is it indestructible, since we observe it being destroyed, nor can it generate things...Fr. 7 Even Democritus erred in a manner unworthy of himself when he said that atoms alone among existing things have true reality, while everything else exists by convention. For, according to your account, Democritus, it will be impossible for us even to live, let alone discover the truth, since we shall be unable to protect ourselves from either fire or slaughter or [any other force].

Today's ID the Future brings listeners physicist and engineer Brian Miller's recent lecture at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, “The Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology.” Miller rebuts several popular arguments for evolution based on claims of poor design in living systems, everything from the “backward wiring” of the vertebrate eye to whales, wrists, ankles, and “junk DNA.” But the main emphasis of this discussion is the exciting sea change in biology in which numerous breakthroughs are occurring by scientists who are treating living systems and subsystems as if they are optimally engineered systems. Some in this movement reject intelligent design for ideological reasons. Others embrace it. But all systems biologists treat these systems as if they are masterfully engineered Read More › Source

On our second excursion into Nietzschean science, we're studying Nietzsche's two most celebrated figures in science: one from Ancient Greece and another from Enlightenment Europe. In Democritus, Nietzsche sees the zenith of the materialist project in Greek philosophy, opening the way for a mathematical atomist description of the world, carried on by the Pythagoreans. In Boscovich, he finds a continuation of this project, centuries later - to describe the world by one force or law, and account for the problem of motion in a way that rejects Kantian or Newtonian appeals to God, or Spinozistic teleology. What comes out of this inquiry is an understanding that Nietzsche may have construed the will to power as a physical reality from the very beginning. From this perspective, will to power is the answer to the problem of motion; it is the inner, “intelligible character” of matter; it is the qualitative expression of what Boscovich's unified field theory offers us in quantitative terms. This episode culminates in a look at some of Nietzsche's more extreme or puzzling statements in his notes where will to power is discussed as a very real physical principle. Pictured in the episode art are Democritus and Boscovich.

In this episode, we revisit the Pre-Platonic lecture series given by Nietzsche at Basel, the notes for which were assembled and translated by Gregory Whitlock. These lectures detail Nietzsche's views on the first philosophers of Ancient Greece, and how they demonstrated that the spirit of scientific investigation is a manifestation of will to power: to bound the boundless within the understanding of reason, by appeal to as few possible starting principles. Nietzsche believes that the Pre-Platonic philosophers - Thales, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and others - represented the descent from an understanding of the world as controlled by a personified heaven, into something explained by natural forces. The end result is materialism: matter as explained by matter itself and its properties or laws. This is powerful and dangerous as an innovation. Materialism offers the greatest utility, but precedes a slide into nihilism. Many of Nietzsche's insights in his interpretation were influenced by the philosopher of science, Friedrich Albert Lange. In this episode, we examine the relation of Nietzsche to Lange, their view of the Pre-Platonics, and then analyze each figure individually to see how each fits in to Nietzsche's narrative of the unfolding of scientific thought in Greece. Rather than a mere historical curiosity, Nietzsche finds the Greeks to express the same driving tendency that underlies science in our own time.

We ought therefore to bring ourselves into such a state of mind that all the vices of the vulgar may not appear hateful to us, but merely ridiculous, and we should imitate Democritus rather than Heraclitus. The latter of these, whenever he appeared in public, used to weep, the former to laugh. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stoicmeditations/support

This week Coop & Tay have a look at Marx's dissertation, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. The dissertation is a focal point in Thomas Nail's Marx in Motion, which we will be discussing in next week's episode. Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/muhh Twitter: @unconscioushh

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Best non-textbooks on every subject, published by Yair Halberstadt on April 4, 2022 on LessWrong. The best way to learn a subject is undoubtedly by reading a textbook on it. But I find textbooks a drudgery, and tend to give up after a couple of chapters. On the other hand I don't need a deep broad formal knowledge in every subject. I often just want to know enough that I know what it's about, the broad questions in the topic, and how to learn more when I need to. On the other hand popular books are easy to read, but often teach you about the subject, without actually teaching any of the subject itself. They're full of anecdotes about the founders of the field, and metaphors for what some of the fields are like, but at the end you may end up more misguided than you went in. There are however the rare popular books that aim to actually give the reader useful knowledge, rather than the illusion of knowledge. For example Godel, Escher, Bach on logic and formal systems, Quantum Computing since Democritus on computer science and Who We Are and How We Got Here on ancient DNA.These examples vary hugely in how involved they are, their style, and how readable they are, but they all share one thing in common: none of them talk down to the reader - they all assume the reader is an intelligent person whose perfectly capable of understanding the topic, but might just be missing a lot of background knowledge.What other books do you know of like that?Ideally all answers should give the title of a single book, optionally with a brief description, and a set of bullet points describing what they liked and didn't like about the book. I'm more interested in physical sciences than social sciences, since it's common in the social sciences to introduce a thesis in book form, so it's easy to find good quality non-textbooks. Meanwhile in the physical sciences most original research is done in research papers, and most pedagogical work in textbooks, leaving much poorer pickings for non-textbooks. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

"Ancient history[edit] Ancient Greece was a polytheistic society in which the gods were not omnipotent and required sacrifice and ritual. The earliest beginnings of religious skepticism can be traced back to Xenophanes. He critiqued popular religion of his time, particularly false conceptions of the divine that are a byproduct of the human propensity to anthropomorphize deities. He took the scripture of his time to task for painting the gods in a negative light and promoted a more rational view of religion. He was very critical of religious people privileging their belief system over others without sound reason.[6][7] Socrates' conception of the divine was that the gods were always benevolent, truthful, authoritative, and wise. Divinity was to operate within the standards of rationality.[8] This critique of established religion ultimately resulted in his trial for impiety and corruption as documented in The Apology. The historian Will Durant writes that Plato was "as skeptical of atheism as of any other dogma."[9][7] Democritus was the father of materialism in the West, and there is no trace of a belief in any afterlife in his work. Specifically, in Those in Hades he refers to constituents of the soul as atoms that dissolve upon death.[10] This later inspired the philosopher Epicurus and the philosophy he founded, who held a materialist view and rejected any afterlife, while further claiming the gods were also uninterested in human affairs.[11] In the poem De rerum natura Lucretius proclaimed Epicurean philosophy, that the universe operates according to physical principles and guided by fortuna, or chance, instead of the Roman gods.[" --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

Subscribe to Quotomania on Simplecast or search for Quotomania on your favorite podcast app!Democritus, known in antiquity as the ‘laughing philosopher' because of his emphasis on the value of ‘cheerfulness,' was one of the two founders of ancient atomist theory. He elaborated a system originated by his teacher Leucippus into a materialist account of the natural world. The atomists held that there are smallest indivisible bodies from which everything else is composed, and that these move about in an infinite void. Of the ancient materialist accounts of the natural world which did not rely on some kind of teleology or purpose to account for the apparent order and regularity found in the world, atomism was the most influential. Even its chief critic, Aristotle, praised Democritus for arguing from sound considerations appropriate to natural philosophy.From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/. For more information about the anonymous epitaph for Democritus:“Everything is Laughter in The End”: https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2017/06/07/everything-is-laughter-in-the-end-an-epitaph/“Democritus”: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/“What's so funny, Democritus?”: https://www.artstor.org/2016/04/21/whats-so-funny-democritus/

“Ecology does not seek connections, but patterns” -Marshall McLuhan “There is no simple linear cause and effect relationship in the emergence of an emergent system as the components that make up the emergent system exert an upward effect on the composite system (the parts creating the whole), and vice versa the composite system exerts downward effects on its components, which form constraints on the behaviour of those components. The interactions of the components that lead to the self-organization of the emergent system are non-linear because of that upward and downward causation. The lateral non-linear causation of the components of the system among themselves actually creates the emergent system. The emergent system then in turn acts downward on those components of which it is composed.” -Robert Logan, 2017 "Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive. It is ecological. I mean ‘ecological' in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists. One significant change generates total change. If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none. This is how the ecology of media works as well. **A new technology does not add or subtract something. it changes everything.** In the year 1500, fifty years after the printing press was invented, we did not have the old Europe plus the printing press. We had a different Europe. After television, the United States was not America plus television; television gave a new coloration to every political campaign, to every home, to every school, to every church, to every industry.” -Neil Postman, 1992 “...there is a spiritual dimension to formal causality, as there is to all acts of creation. But for those who prefer a more scientific outlook, let me simply note that formal cause corresponds to the systems view of Gregory Bateson, to the dissipative structures of physicist Ilya Prigogine, to the fractal geometry of Benoit Mandelbrot and the metapatterns of Tyler Volk, to the autopoietic systems of biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and in general to the systems concept of emergence.” -Eric McLuhan, 2011 “From the very beginning of Western philosophy and science, there has been a tension between mechanism and holism, between the study of matter (or substance, structure, quantity) and the study of form (or pattern, order, quality). The study of matter was championed by Democritus, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton; the study of form by Pythagoras, Aristotle, Kant, and Goethe. Leonardo followed the tradition of Pythagoras and Aristotle, and he combined it with his rigorous empirical method to formulate a science of living forms, their patterns of organization, and their processes of growth and transformation. He was deeply aware of the fundamental interconnectedness of all phenomena and of the interdependence and mutual generation of all parts of an organic whole.” Fritjof Capra, 2008 “[McLuhan's formal causality and tetrad] enhances media ecology, obsolesces content analysis, retrieves Einstein's four-dimensional space time continuum and flips into the reversal of cause and effect.” -Lance Strate, 2017 Sources: https://old.reddit.com/r/DilettanteryPodcast/comments/s437w4/130_formal_cause_part_2_chairs_memes_graham/?

The period when the Earth was Moonless is probably the most remote recollection of mankind. Democritus and Anaxagoras taught that there was a time when the Earth was without the Moon...http://www.troubledminds.org Support The Show! https://rokfin.com/creator/troubledminds https://teespring.com/stores/troubled-minds-store #aliens #conspiracy #paranormalRadio Schedule Mon-Tues-Wed-Thurs 7-9pst - https://fringe.fm/iTunes - https://apple.co/2zZ4hx6Spotify - https://spoti.fi/2UgyzqMStitcher - https://bit.ly/2UfAiMXTuneIn - https://bit.ly/2FZOErSTwitter - https://bit.ly/2CYB71UFollow Ash -- https://bit.ly/3CUTe4ZFollow James -- https://salsidoparanormal.podbean.com/Follow Jennifer -- https://bit.ly/3bCQBK7Follow Joseph -- https://bit.ly/3pNjbzbFollow Nightstocker -- https://bit.ly/3mFGGtxRobert's Book -- https://amzn.to/3GEsFUKFollow Rohan -- https://bit.ly/2ZSKhLXFollow TamBam -- https://www.instagram.com/tamlbam/Follow Tinfoil Timothy -- https://bit.ly/3BKtHuX----------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/if-the-moon-were-destroyed-what-would-it-mean-for-earthhttps://varchive.org/itb/sansmoon.htmhttps://theconversation.com/how-the-moon-formed-new-research-133204https://www.space.com/19275-moon-formation.htmlhttps://oepos.ca.uky.edu/files/moon_formation_theories_lp.pdfhttps://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/explore/marvelMoon/background/moon-formation/https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread11197/pg1http://web.archive.org/web/20030314205511/http://ufoarea.bravepages.com/aas_moon_flood.htmlhttps://michaeltellinger.com/a-time-before-the-moon-was-in-the-sky/http://thephaser.com/2019/05/a-time-before-the-moon-how-did-the-moon-get-here/http://lewisiana.nl/bibleknotsandjunctions/bible/earthwithoutamoon/http://halexandria.org/dward200.htmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n39vIZyAds&ab_channel=UFOVideoAddictshttps://www.oldest.org/culture/civilizations/https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-of-the-world-s-oldest-civilizations.htmlhttps://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-naledihttps://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/did-another-advanced-species-exist-earth-humans-ncna869856

A French philosopher from the 16th century advises humility on what we don't know, but that we are still born to inquire after the truth.“It [truth] is not, as Democritus said, hid in the bottom of the deeps, but rather elevated to an infinite height in the divine knowledge. The world is but a school of inquisition: it is not who shall enter the ring, but who shall run the best courses.”Michele de Montaigne

Join Mark and Adam for the heartfelt conclusion to Season 1 of Unlimited Opinions, in which they discuss modern philosophers' opinions on God! They discuss the various ideas that God is not real, from Ludwig Feuerbach's belief that God is just a projection of the human mind, Marx's "opium of the masses," and Nietzsche's famous "God is dead."  They also look at the opposite beliefs, with Kierkegaard's opinion that religion is the summit of human progress, Cardinal Newman's religious ideals, and Wittgenstein's belief that only faith can give meaning to life. They are also open to suggestions for what the next season should center around, and would welcome any suggestions on Twitter! @UlmtdOpinions

How many people in our lives are really fully-fledged people to us and not just NPCs? How do we wrap our minds around the fact that everyone is their own individual person? All this and more probably will not be answered in this episode of Unlimited Opinions! Mark and Adam look at more philosophers in the Modern Era of philosophy, including Frege's birth of analytical philosophy, British Idealism, and Wittgenstein's various philosophical beliefs. Language is discussed heavily, and Mark and Adam describe its importance in every aspect of human life.  Follow us on Twitter! @UlmtdOpinions