Podcasts about Protagoras

Jeudi 30 mai 2024Jean-Marc Narbonne – "Protagoras, premier penseur de la démocratie. Une relecture philosophique et historique" – Éditions PULEn principe, Protagoras est quelqu'un qui a beaucoup pour plaire. C'est un démocrate aux prétentions plutôt modestes, un homme qui s'efforce d'améliorer autant qu'il le peut le bien-être des individus qu'il côtoie et celui des cités dans lesquelles il séjourne. Un réformateur sans doute, mais prudent et bien vu de « toute la Grèce cultivée », comme l'avait déjà noté Nietzsche. Pourquoi alors tant de défiance à son égard? Bien sûr, chacun sait ce qui a entaché son nom et sa réputation dans l'histoire, une machine de guerre conçue par Platon pour discréditer ses positions et à laquelle Aristote lui-même, qui lui doit en réalité beaucoup et le rejoint sur plusieurs points, a contribué.Dans le présent livre - le premier en langue française à lui être expressément consacré -, l'on verra pourtant qu'un autre portrait de Protagoras est possible, celui d'un penseur qui tient sur la réalité sensible des propos beaucoup plus fondés que ce qu'on a généralement reconnu, qui adopte face au divin une position plus révérencieuse que ce que sa fameuse déclaration « agnostique » a pu laisser supposer, qui se révèle plus proche d'Aristote que ce qu'on a prétendu et que l'intéressé lui-même s'est montré prêt à le reconnaître, et partisan d'une démocratie de type modéré dont Aristote plus tard se fera lui-même le chantre.Bref, un Protagoras qui épistémologiquement, religieusement, éthiquement et politiquement parlant, se mesure en fait aux plus grands esprits dans l'histoire, un penseur innovant qu'il convient de reconsidérer et dont on tente par ailleurs ici - une nouveauté - de retracer l'influence depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'à nos jours.Jean-Marc Narbonne, Membre de la Société royale du Canada, est professeur de philosophie antique à l'Université Laval (Québec), titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada en Antiquité Critique et Modernité Émergente (ACMÉ, 2015-2022), directeur du projet Partenariat international de recherche Raison et Révélation : l'Héritage Critique de l'Antiquité (CRSH 2014-2021), et directeur du projet d'édition des Œuvres complètes de Plotin aux éditions Les Belles Lettres. 

Episode: 1363 Man the measure -- man the meter.  Today, let's ask what meters measure.

With Ascent to the Beautiful, William H. F. Altman completes his five-volume reconstruction of the Reading Order of the Platonic dialogues. This book covers Plato's elementary dialogues, grappling from the start with F. D. E. Schleiermacher, who created an enduring prejudice against the works Plato wrote for beginners. Recognized in antiquity as the place to begin, Alcibiades Major was banished from the canon but it was not alone: with the exception of Protagoras and Symposium, Schleiermacher rejected as inauthentic all seven of the dialogues this book places between them. In order to prove their authenticity, Altman illuminates their interconnections and shows how each prepares the student to move beyond self-interest to gallantry, and thus from the doctrinal intellectualism Aristotle found in Protagoras to the emergence of philosophy as intermediate between wisdom and ignorance in Symposium, en route to Diotima's ascent to the transcendent Beautiful. Based on the hypothesis that it was his own eminently teachable dialogues that Plato taught—and bequeathed to posterity as his Academy's eternal curriculum—Ascent to the Beautiful helps the reader to imagine the Academy as a school. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

With Ascent to the Beautiful, William H. F. Altman completes his five-volume reconstruction of the Reading Order of the Platonic dialogues. This book covers Plato's elementary dialogues, grappling from the start with F. D. E. Schleiermacher, who created an enduring prejudice against the works Plato wrote for beginners. Recognized in antiquity as the place to begin, Alcibiades Major was banished from the canon but it was not alone: with the exception of Protagoras and Symposium, Schleiermacher rejected as inauthentic all seven of the dialogues this book places between them. In order to prove their authenticity, Altman illuminates their interconnections and shows how each prepares the student to move beyond self-interest to gallantry, and thus from the doctrinal intellectualism Aristotle found in Protagoras to the emergence of philosophy as intermediate between wisdom and ignorance in Symposium, en route to Diotima's ascent to the transcendent Beautiful. Based on the hypothesis that it was his own eminently teachable dialogues that Plato taught—and bequeathed to posterity as his Academy's eternal curriculum—Ascent to the Beautiful helps the reader to imagine the Academy as a school. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

With Ascent to the Beautiful, William H. F. Altman completes his five-volume reconstruction of the Reading Order of the Platonic dialogues. This book covers Plato's elementary dialogues, grappling from the start with F. D. E. Schleiermacher, who created an enduring prejudice against the works Plato wrote for beginners. Recognized in antiquity as the place to begin, Alcibiades Major was banished from the canon but it was not alone: with the exception of Protagoras and Symposium, Schleiermacher rejected as inauthentic all seven of the dialogues this book places between them. In order to prove their authenticity, Altman illuminates their interconnections and shows how each prepares the student to move beyond self-interest to gallantry, and thus from the doctrinal intellectualism Aristotle found in Protagoras to the emergence of philosophy as intermediate between wisdom and ignorance in Symposium, en route to Diotima's ascent to the transcendent Beautiful. Based on the hypothesis that it was his own eminently teachable dialogues that Plato taught—and bequeathed to posterity as his Academy's eternal curriculum—Ascent to the Beautiful helps the reader to imagine the Academy as a school. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we consider some of the philosophically insightful sections of Nietzsche's lectures on rhetoric & the Sophists. In particular, we examine the figure of Protagoras, of whom we have little information, but who is credited with establishing the Sophists as a philosophical school focused on rhetoric. The latter half of the episode concerns the Platonic dialogue named for Protagoras, the "great speech" of Protagoras contained within, and the somewhat puzzling dispute between Protagoras and Socrates on whether or not virtue can be taught.

ATHEISM! Where did it come from, and how did it evolve? This episode of Religion Camp dives into the history of atheism, from its ancient philosophical roots to its rise in the modern world. We're unpacking the key figures, cultural shifts, and societal impacts that shaped the concept of a world without gods. Skeptics, philosophers, and history buffs—this one's for you. Welcome to CAMP!

Nous sommes au 5e siècle avant notre ère. Protagoras, penseur grec dit : « l'Homme est la mesure de toutes choses ». Quelques siècles plus tard, au 16e, Montaigne écrit, dans ses Essais : Chaque homme porte la forme entière de l'humaine condition ». Entre ces deux moments, quelques grands esprits, avides de connaissances et de transmission se sont mis à la recherche des textes anciens. Ce sont ces « Curieux » qui ont posé les premières dalles de ce que l'on appelle l'Humanisme. Avec Annick Delfosse, professeur d'histoire moderne à l'ULG. Sujets traités : Protagoras, grec, Montaigne, essais, esprits, textes, humanisme Merci pour votre écoute Un Jour dans l'Histoire, c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine de 13h15 à 14h30 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes d'Un Jour dans l'Histoire sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/5936 Intéressés par l'histoire ? Vous pourriez également aimer nos autres podcasts : L'Histoire Continue: https://audmns.com/kSbpELwL'heure H : https://audmns.com/YagLLiKEt sa version à écouter en famille : La Mini Heure H https://audmns.com/YagLLiKAinsi que nos séries historiques :Chili, le Pays de mes Histoires : https://audmns.com/XHbnevhD-Day : https://audmns.com/JWRdPYIJoséphine Baker : https://audmns.com/wCfhoEwLa folle histoire de l'aviation : https://audmns.com/xAWjyWCLes Jeux Olympiques, l'étonnant miroir de notre Histoire : https://audmns.com/ZEIihzZMarguerite, la Voix d'une Résistante : https://audmns.com/zFDehnENapoléon, le crépuscule de l'Aigle : https://audmns.com/DcdnIUnUn Jour dans le Sport : https://audmns.com/xXlkHMHSous le sable des Pyramides : https://audmns.com/rXfVppvN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.

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?

Welcome to Episode 252 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 41 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to attack the Epicurean view of the nature of divinity. Today's Text: XLI. But they are free from pain. Is that sufficient for beings who are supposed to enjoy all good things and the most supreme felicity? The Deity, they say, is constantly meditating on his own happiness, for he has no other idea which can possibly occupy his mind. Consider a little; reflect what a figure the Deity would make if he were to be idly thinking of nothing through all eternity but “It is very well with me, and I am happy;” nor do I see why this happy Deity should not fear being destroyed, since, without any intermission, he is driven and agitated by an everlasting incursion of atoms, and since images are constantly floating off from him. Your Deity, therefore, is neither happy nor eternal. Epicurus, it seems, has written books concerning sanctity and piety towards the Gods. But how does he speak on these subjects? You would say that you were listening to Coruncanius or Scævola, the high-priests, and not to a man who tore up all religion by the roots, and who overthrew the temples and altars of the immortal Gods; not, indeed, with hands, like Xerxes, but with arguments; for what reason is there for your saying that men ought to worship the Gods, when the Gods not only do not regard men, but are entirely careless of everything, and absolutely do nothing at all? But they are, you say, of so glorious and excellent a nature that a wise man is induced by their excellence to adore them. Can there be any glory or excellence in that nature which only contemplates its own happiness, and neither will do, nor does, nor ever did anything? Besides, what piety is due to a being from whom you receive nothing? Or how can you, or any one else, be indebted to him who bestows no benefits? For piety is only justice towards the Gods; but what right have they to it, when there is no communication whatever between the Gods and men? And sanctity is the knowledge of how we ought to worship them; but I do not understand why they are to be worshipped, if we are neither to receive nor expect any good from them. 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.

Understanding Sophism: Background, Impact, and CritiquesIn this episode, the discussion focuses on the Sophists, their role in ancient philosophy, and their impact on subsequent thought. We delve into their characteristics, methodologies, and goals, exploring how they served as both a culmination and a reaction to earlier philosophical ideas. Daniel summarizes their teaching under the three headings of: skepticism, relativism, and pragmatism. The conversation ultimately highlights the critical role the Sophists played in setting the stage for the great philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Through an analysis of Sophist principles and the response by Socrates and Plato, the episode offers a comprehensive understanding of this significant yet often misunderstood philosophical movement.00:00 Introduction to the Topic00:36 The Role and Influence of Sophists02:06 Sophists' Business Model and Teaching Methods04:58 Protagoras and His Teachings06:53 Skepticism in Sophist Philosophy11:23 Relativism Explained18:24 Pragmatism in Sophist Thought18:49 The Concept of Enlightened Self-Interest20:00 Pragmatism and Societal Values21:50 Cultural Practices and Moral Relativism23:34 Custom vs. Nature: The Debate25:26 Sophocles' Antigone: A Case Study27:59 Socrates and Plato: Challenging Relativism33:04 The Legacy of the Sophists36:01 Conclusion and Next Steps

Welcome to Episode 240 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 Episode 240 - The Academic Skeptic Falsely Alleges That Epicurus Bases His Argument For Divinity On The General Opinion Of Mankind - Not Yet Releasedyou 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 23 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 TextXXIII. You have said that the general assent of men of all nations and all degrees is an argument strong enough to induce us to acknowledge the being of the Gods. This is not only a weak, but a false, argument; for, first of all, how do you know the opinions of all nations? I really believe there are many people so savage that they have no thoughts of a Deity. What think you of Diagoras, who was called the atheist; and of Theodorus after him? Did not they plainly deny the very essence of a Deity? Protagoras of Abdera, whom you just now mentioned, the greatest sophist of his age, was banished by order of the Athenians from their city and territories, and his books were publicly burned, because these words were in the beginning of his treatise concerning the Gods: “I am unable to arrive at any knowledge whether there are, or are not, any Gods.” This treatment of him, I imagine, restrained many from professing their disbelief of a Deity, since the doubt of it only could not escape punishment. What shall we say of the sacrilegious, the impious, and the perjured? If Tubulus Lucius, Lupus, or Carbo the son of Neptune, as Lucilius says, had believed that there were Gods, would either of them have carried his perjuries and impieties to such excess? Your reasoning, therefore, to confirm your assertion is not so conclusive as you think it is. But as this is the manner in which other philosophers have argued on the same subject, I will take no further notice of it at present; I rather choose to proceed to what is properly your own.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.

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

Protagoras by Plato audiobook. Jowett, in his always informative introduction, sees this dialogue as transitional between the early and middle dialogues. Socrates meets with Protagoras and other sophists and pursues his inquiry into virtue. The dialectic brings the thinkers to a surprising ending. Socrates narrates this dialogue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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 love how easy it is to predict things about you based on what you like or dislike.Did you know, for example, that if you buy fresh fennel, you are likely to be a low insurance risk? If you like traditional architecture and old buildings, you are more likely to have a conservative, right-of-centre worldview. Whereas if you like modern architecture, you will lean to the left.For what it's worth, there are plenty of 20th-century buildings that I find beautiful. I like Art Deco; I like Bauhaus stuff; I think a lot of modern US residential architecture is great. But I think a lot of more recent Deconstructivist and Parametric stuff has disappeared up its state-funded backside and has no chance of standing the test of time. Post-war social housing the world over is verging on the sinful, it is so ugly, not a patch on the almshouses built a century before for the same purpose, when mankind was far less “advanced”. Meanwhile, the glass-fronted apartment and office blocks that blight cities worldwide may be nice to look out from, but to look at they are horrible.When I look at, for example, what has been built in Lewisham, Elephant and Castle or along the banks of the Thames, you have to wonder what on earth people were thinking. What a wasted opportunity to build something with beauty that endures.I was looking out on the Thames from Canary Wharf the other day. Here is what we built.Here is what was possible.In any case, it is inevitable that most modern architecture will not be beautiful. Inevitable! It is built into the system. Let me explain why.Yes, there is regulation. When final say falls to the regulator, not the creator, and he/she never thinks in terms of beauty, only rules and career risk, and construction is always planned with his or her approval in mind, you immediately clip your wings and more. Imagine Michelangelo, Rembrandt, or Beethoven requiring regulatory approval for their work. Under this banner falls health and safety, bureaucracy, the technocratic mentality, planning, standardisation of materials and their mass production, and more.But there is something even more fundamental, which makes lack of beauty inevitable. That is the system of measurement itself. In the past, before mass-produced tape measures were a thing, we made do with the most immediate tools we had to measure things: the human body. Traditional weights and measures were all based around the human body. A foot is, well, a foot. A hand is a hand. A span is a hand stretched out. An inch is a thumb. There are four thumbs to a hand, six to a span, 12 to a foot, 18 to a cubit, which is the distance from elbow to fingertip. A yard is a pace, which happens to be three feet as well. A fathom is the arms stretched out - two yards, or six feet. It goes on: a pound is roughly what you can hold comfortably in your hand. A furlong is the distance a man of average fitness can sprint for. A stone is what you can carry without strain. A US pint is a pound of water, enough to quench a thirst, and so on. Man is indeed the measure of all things, to paraphrase Protagoras. Spread the truth about weights and measures.Da Vinci noticed it. “Nature has thus arranged the measurements of a man: four fingers make one palm. And four palms make one foot; six palms make one cubit; four cubits make once a man's height," he says in his notes for Vitruvian Man.It turns out the feet are very similar the world over and have been throughout history. The foot, for example, was the principal unit in the design of Stonehenge. Here are some different feet from around the world and from throughout history:The cubit was the principal unit of the Pyramids. The pound is the oldest measure of all and goes all the way back to the Babylonian mina.Here's the thing: proportion is inherent to traditional weights and measures because they derive from the human body, which is proportionate. We are biologically programmed to find the proportions of the human body attractive. The religious will argue that God made man in his own image. Traditional weights and measures derive, therefore, from God, or his image at least, and so are divine.The metric system, on the other hand, is not based on the human body, but on the earth itself. A metre is supposed to be one 10 millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator (though one of French scientists measuring the distance forged the data, so the measure is flawed). The idea of a system based on the earth itself rather than the human body was to achieve a “universal measure based on the perfection of nature” and “a system for all people for all time” to use the words of those who commissioned the measure in the years after the French Revolution. Metric may have a brilliantly simple and comprehensible design, based around the number 10, but unlike traditional weights and measures, proportion is not intrinsic to it. For the purposes of science and for safety, as I argue in my lecture with funny bits, How Heavy?, a universal system of weights and measures is a very important thing. Thanks to the simplicity of decimals (again which derive from the human body and the ten fingers we use to count), metric can scale up or down for use in nanotech or in macrotech .As proportion is inherent to traditional weights and measures, buildings based on them will inevitably have inherent proportion and thus all the beauty which comes with proportion. But most of the world now uses metric in its building, which has no inherent proportion, so it becomes inevitable that modern buildings will not have the proportion inherent to older buildings, unless, the architects deliberately plan otherwise, which most of the time they don't. Thus is modern architecture inevitably not beautiful.It's why even functional old buildings, such as barns or warehouses, have a beauty to them. The proportion is inherent in the foundational weights and measures. It is missing in modern buildings.In the past, weights and measures changed, even if only slightly, from region to region. The result was regional diversity in buildings. Using local materials will have added to this regional individuality. But the world over now using the same system of weights and measures, following similar regulations, using similar mass produced materials, means modern architecture will lack beauty the world over. Bland conformity reigns. Even something as foundational as an old brick is proportionate. A brick is a hand in width. For obvious reasons: so a brickie could handle it.In short, unless an architect or builder takes deliberate steps to remedy this problem of proportion, modern buildings will only ever be beautiful by accident. Here's a little irony: if you like traditional weights and measures, you're more likely to be right of centre, favour free markets, individual responsibility - all that kind of stuff. Favour metric, and you're one of those evil left-wing technocrats who champions government intervention, experts and the BBC.Now go tell your friends about this amazing post.Until next time,DominicPS Here is my lecture with funny bits about weights and measures from the Edinburgh Festival in 2022. I think it's probably the best of all my lectures so far.PPS And here is an 5-minute extract from Italian TV series Sense of Beauty, which I presented a few years back, about beauty and architecture. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists. If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists. If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists. If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron  

Continuing on Book 4 (Gamma) of the Metaphysics. We discuss further the relations between the logical and metaphysical versions of the principle of non-contradiction and how Aristotle characterizes relativists like Protagoras who he claims violate non-contradiction. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

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

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

This week, Jeff and Dave continue on their stroll through the wonders of Marrou's volume on ancient education. Specifically, they look at Chapter V and the question of the Sophists. Men like Protagoras, Gorgias, and Prodicus were doing something new and unusual at the close of the fifth century, no doubt. And that something was -- wait for it -- selling education! Many arch-conservatives like Plato and Aristophanes did not take to it kindly. But is there any way to sort the wheat from the chaff? How can we know that what Plato tells us about the Sophists is the genuine article, and not just some envious hyperbole? Were these traveling salesman peddling snake oil, or could they really teach how to govern a state properly, the πολιτικὴ τέχνη. And if so, does that constitute ἐπιστήμη? Come along for a lively discussion, complete with the usual round of questionable puns, absurd asides, and just a dash of inanity. Before long, you'll be eating at the Midway food court just like the rest of us. Did someone say M-Burger?

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

Antický filozof a sofista Protagoras to zhrnul jasne: Človek je mierou všetkých vecí - toho čo je, že je; toho, čo nie je, že nie je. V kocke definoval to, čomu sa dnes vo filozofii hovorí konštruktivizmus, ale dnes sa chcem s vami zamyslieť nad niečim iným a Protagora použijem ako premosteniu k výroku amerického filozofa Wilfrida Sellarsa, ktorý rovnako slávne povedal, že je to práve veda, ktorá je mierou všetkých vecí. ----more----   V kocke definoval to, čo tradične nazývame ako naturalizmus: realita je materiálnej a reduktivistickej povahy, ktorú vie študovať, popísať a spoznať moderná vedecké metóda, v skratke "veda". Takto chápaný naturalizmus sa dnes tiež zvykne nazývať fyzikalizmus a tvrdenie, že veda je mierou všetkých vecí tiež označujeme ako scientizmus.  Liberálny naturalizmus, z ang. "liberal naturalism", je pozícia, ktorá má s takto zúženou interpretáciou prírody a sveta problém - a i keď odmieta existenciu Boha ako supernaturálnej bytosti, stále uznáva, že naša realita obsahuje aj nemateriálne veci ako etické a estetické hodnoty či slobodnú vôľu a morálnu zodpovednosť, a nič z toho nie je ilúzia či evolučná projekcia našej mysle. A o tomto všetkom vás chcem dnes rozrozmýšľať.   Súvisiace dávky: PD#226: Rozhovor s Martinom Luteránom o prirodzenom zákone, http://bit.ly/davka226 PD#204: Naturalizmus a Boh, http://bit.ly/davka204 PD#97: Aristoteles a duša, http://bit.ly/davka97 PD#89: Immanuel Kant, myseľ a svet, http://bit.ly/davka89 PD#85: David Hume, myseľ a svet, http://bit.ly/davka85 Použitá alebo odporúčaná literatúra:  McDowell, "Two Sorts of Naturalism" v Mind, Value, and Reality (HUP, 2002) De Caro, MacArthur, The Routledge Handbook of Liberal Naturalism (Routledge, 2022)  Aristotle, On the Soul (dostupné online v angličtine) - preklad J. A. Smith Ellis, "Naturalism and Transcendence" / Expansive Naturalism (YouTube, 2018) MacArthur, "A Liberal Naturalist Response to Expansive Naturalism" (YouTube, 2018) Ellis, "Supernaturalism and Naturalism: Beyond the Divide?" (YouTube, 2017) *** Baví ťa s nami rozmýšľať? Podpor našu tvorbu priamo na SK1283605207004206791985 alebo cez Patreon (https://bit.ly/PDtreon), kde Ťa odmeníme aj my. *** ÚRYVKY *** (1) "Najvýraznejšou udalosťou v dejinách myslenia medzi Aristotelom a nami je vznik modernej vedy. (...)  Je všeobecne známe, že moderná veda nám priniesla odčarovanú predstavu o svete prírody. Správne ocenenie vedy znemožňuje zachovať si, snáď s výnimkou nejakej symbolickej podoby, bežnú stredovekú predstavu prírody ako naplnenej významom, ako knihy obsahujúcej posolstvá a poučenia pre nás. Tendencia vedeckého pohľadu je očistiť svet od významu. (...)  Hume je prorokom par excellance tejto tendencie, hoci si celkom neuvedomuje jej historické vysvetlenie. Rozum, zdôrazňuje Hume, nenachádza vo svete význam alebo zrozumiteľný poriadok; naopak, akýkoľvek zrozumiteľný poriadok v našom obraze sveta je produktom operácií rozumu a tieto operácie sú samy osebe len časťou toho, čo sa deje v prírode a samé osebe sú takpovediac bez významu. Z tohto pohľadu sa Kant javí ako zúfalý reakcionár. Trvá na tom, že vo svete sa nachádza zrozumiteľný poriadok, ale robí to tak, že svet rekonštruuje ako čiastočne konštituovaný mysľou. (...)  (2) "Tvrdil som, že hľadanie spôsobu, ako zachovať Kantovo chápanie, vedie k poňatiu rozumu, ktoré je v istom zmysle naturalistické: sformovaný stav praktického rozumu je druhou prirodzenosťou človeka, nie niečím, čo by jeho prirodzenosti diktovalo zvonka. Táto koncepcia však nie je naturalistická v tom zmysle, že by sa usilovala založiť intelektuálne oprávnenia praktického rozumu na faktoch, aké objavujú prírodné vedy. Ak použijeme rétoriku etického realizmu, druhá prirodzenosť pôsobí vo svete, v ktorom nachádza viac než to, čo je prístupné pohľadu z odľudšteného postoja, ktorý prírodné vedy, oprávnene pre svoje účely, zaujímajú. A nie je nič proti tomu, aby sa aj táto bohatšia skutočnosť zahrnula do rubriky prírody. Prírodné vedy nemajú na tento pojem výhradné právo; a pridané bohatstvo sa dostáva do zorného poľa nie pôsobením nejakej tajomnej nad-prirodzenej sily, ale preto, že ľudské bytosti získavajú druhú prirodzenosť. Príroda v tomto bohatšom poňatí je do istej miery autonómna vo vzťahu k prírode v prírodovedeckom poňatí."

Most of what we know about the greatest of the Sophists, Protagoras, comes from Plato. Whether, then, what we know about him accurately reflects the reality, we cannot be certain. He was, certainly, one of the most famous itinerant teachers of rhetoric in classical Greece. He is most famous for the line, "Man is the measure of all things," as quoted by Socrates/Plato in the dialogue Theatetus, a dialogue that we hope to read for Simple Gifts at a later date. In this dialogue, the famous but aged rhetorician, encounters Socrates while staying at the home of Callias, a wealthy Athenian. Many other characters are featured or present, including several other prominent Sophists.

There is more backstory to tell before I get to the day that I flushed my anti-depressants. I had never hear of Father Garrigou-Lagrange and the idea of a “predominant fault,” also called a root sin, until a few years ago. Everyone has a predominant fault, and it is one of three things: pride, vanity, or sensuality. Sensuality seems to be my taproot, because in pleasure I find the sensual escape from all struggle. A slice of pumpkin pie is not unlike a shot of whiskey for me. But pride and vanity are ever ready to take the lead as well as my predominant fault. The more I reflected on it, I came to see that I have all three of these faults. And the more I reflected on everyone else I know, I came to realize that every human being suffers from all three of these in different ways. Pride is unavoidable. I came to reject authority, since that is the American way, and pride is the fault in every case. The problem is that we lionize pride today. Individual pride, national pride, school pride, family pride, town pride, gay pride - it's everywhere. We have all forgotten that pride is what caused the Fall because we dropped humility long ago. Vanity too is praised. Looking fit, being cool, seeking approval, receiving honors, gaining esteem - all of these are valued today. And as for the old morality around sensuality, around sex and food, gluttony and lust? The old “prudish” ways didn't seem to have any answers either. Pride, vanity, and sensuality were littered all over in the lyrics and scripts of American culture. After all, celebrities and singers believe in themselves, and usually in interviews when asked to give advice to aspiring fans, they say, “Never give up. Always believe in yourself.” The messages about marriage and sex and morality in general were unanimous on the radio and TV: humans could only flourish if they were free to sleep with random partners at will, unrestrained from the old Church rules. Also, getting high was good. Also, sex was meaningless and masturbation was self-care. Also, honoring your parents was for suckers. Also, the pursuit of wealth was not a trap, but the good life. Also, Sundays were not for worshipping Jesus, honoring Mary, and communing with the Saints, they were for sleeping off a hangover, drinking Bloody Marys, and watching the New Orleans Saints play football. And as for God? Get serious - that was just an adult Santa story. Rage Against the Machine summed up the 1990s best with their lyrics: “F*** you, I won't do what you tell me,” screamed at high decibels. Like in the old Maxell cassette ad, this song screamed what we felt inside. It's comical to listen to Rage Against the Machine songs now, but it's solid evidence of what a screwed up era it was, particularly when we were living an age of wealth and privilege. Ice Cube and Snoop Dogg took care of glorifying violence, meaningless sex, and open disrespect of women. The culmination of it all came with Limp Bizkit screaming, “Give me something to break” in stadiums full of wrecked people smashing into each other like the harpies in hell. We were like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, where all the cosmetic gauges and lights in the control room looked great as the reactor core, the heart, was in the throes of violent meltdown. The good thing was, all of this could fit in just fine with the “Believe in yourself” mantra. The important thing was that you kept up the facade of self-esteem. The first principle of “believe in yourself” is that perception is reality: Whatever I think is right, is right because…I believe in myself. I am the authority. The Sophists that Socrates argued against have been let out of their cage all over again. Having grown up around a fair amount of lukewarm Christians of all stripes, it seemed that the call to chastity and claim to holiness was a wink. Some were living their lives as if Christ had risen from the grave, but not many. Following suit, I loosely clung to the Church for a badge of identity for a while, until the school system fully applied the wedge between belief in Self versus belief in God. I was mostly eager to let it happen. After all, most TV shows mocked the Church in one way or another. I'd seen George Carlin's HBO-special tirades against faith that made atheism seem cool. Most of all, teachers and college professors seemed to be on a subtle crusade against all things supernatural. Here is one example (of many possible examples) of the programming I received: In my junior year of high school, in chemistry class, the teacher showed us a video that explained what really happened at the Wedding Feast at Cana. We were told by the Bible and at Church that Jesus had miraculously turned water into wine. This was a mystery to be pondered and wondered about in awe. But my teacher shared a hypothesis that it could have been accomplished by a chemistry trick. Jesus was most likely a magician, or a scientist (Occam's Razor, right?) - and therefore he was a charlatan. The laws of physics could never be broken, you see, because we lived in a purely material universe. The teacher showed us a video and was very pleased with it. (This really did happen in class, and there really is a video about this, although I cannot find it now.) Jesus had just used an acid-to-base additive to cause the color of the water to change. The people in Cana were so drunk that they couldn't tell. (Of course, this disregards the line that this was the “best wine” of all from the actual Wedding Feast at Cana story - and it is the sober host that tastes it and announces the quality of the wine - but I digress.) To me, this event marks the logical conclusion of the long watering-down of Biblical scholarship. The wine at Cana was now just colored water. This fit well with the modern scholarly view that when Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes that the people just shared what they had been hiding. All the miracles were being explained away in purely rational, natural, material methods. The message was clear: science was the only way of knowing; no such thing as miracles existed. A university New Testament class took it even further with mentioning a funny “swoon theory” to explain away the Resurrection. Comparative literature professors turned the Bible into the equivalent of Greek myth. The 19th century Germans had dissected the Bible, the 20th century atheist academics then had the body drawn and quartered, and now it was scientists themselves doing the autopsy. That my public school teacher (who was really just echoing the very old Ebionite heresy) was now evangelizing kids into the “cool teacher/magician” version of Jesus illustrated how far the Word of God had fallen in Christendom. This anti-religious intrusion into science class surprised me, although I don't know why it did. God-talk had long been forbidden at school. Religious mockery, however, was not prohibited, even by teachers, and this was specifically true for Christianity, while Islam and Jewish talk had a hall pass. This speech code had been established in fifth and sixth grade already. God-talk had been banished from music and language arts. But now I had an authority from the science department pitching the idea that the Biblical miracles were a magic act, a facade, a sham. This was going above and beyond the typical curriculum of “believe in yourself” to openly plant doubts about the idea of a Creator, the Incarnation, miracles, and faith in general. Besides my one hour of Mass a week as a child, with its three readings and a seven-minute Homily, I had no spiritual direction. School and TV sitcoms were the closest thing to spiritual direction. Teachers and TV dads gave the life talks. The idea that the public school is “non-religious” has become less and less tenable, because the consistent messaging from age six onward was a dead match for the beliefs of religious humanism. And of course, there was always the obsession with shape-shifting Liberty, as liberalism has its goddess on an island off of New York City. But what the goddess of liberty means can be whatever you like, since individualism goes really well with “believe in yourself.” Unfortunately, all of this takes a very long time for a kid to figure out, and that is the point; most will never figure it out. As for me, I was a house of cards, with no real strength in my belief. No foundation, no understanding. Had life events not guided me to another path, I would never have uprooted what had been planted in the soil tended by my public school gardeners. Now when I think of the teachers I had, they were so clearly humanist in their approach. For three years in particular, the humanist message was like an air-horn in the classroom. I don't think it was anything evil. These teachers had just bought a bad batch, thinking they were planting oak trees but it was just thorns and thistles. They acted as the apostles of John Dewey, not Jesus Christ. I suppose they even thought it was working. Having been around enough sales people, a pitch becomes contagious when it appears to be working. As long as people are buying, they will use the pitch. This also happens with fishermen, where if one guy catches a big fish, everyone cuts their bait and starts using the same bait that the lucky guy was using. We just can't help ourselves but get on the bandwagon. But as soon as the product proves a failure and the pitch can no longer sell product, they drop it like garbage and chase the new thing. Fishermen do the same. That is what has happened now, as the humanism of the 20th century has proven to be a failure, and new shiny pitches were taken up for testing. These too will fail within a generation. The problem is that these ideas are all coming from “The Enlightenment,” which was never the candle in the dark it claimed to be. If there was any light, it was from a dumpster fire of half-truths. It ignored the soul and God, the key things needed for sanity and mental health. My teachers of the humanist dogma were doing what they thought was best for kids because the cult of self-esteem had been sold to them first. When you buy a bad product, it's hard to admit. It's embarrassing. It was like the many monorails that were sold to cities across America, or like Olympic villages with their unused, mossed-over bobsled tracks. The problem is that much time is required to pay the piper for leading people into error, and it takes generations to correct. This is why the modern dogma of “Believe in yourself” is so lame. We are just so small in the grand scheme of all that God has created in time and space, and when we elevate our importance to the highest place of belief, it's absurd. It's boring. We're so limited, but God can do anything. To quote Pink Floyd, I'd rather have a walk-on part in the war, than a lead role in a cage. (And we are living in a spiritual war.)Thus it becomes a manner of assenting to a set of foundational ideas and the proof is in how you live. Because it's one thing to say “I believe in one God” and then live for the sacred Self. And now I know, this is why I needed to ask my doctor about Lexapro. This division within from childhood had cleaved me apart, leaving me as only a body. Because I could say the Creed at Church but not believe it, and I certainly wasn't living it. Around age eighteen, I started only mouthing certain lines of the Nicene Creed, if I happened to attend Mass. But in reality, I was just finally in such a state of mortal sin that I could no longer even fake the words. And this is how the devil gets you. What must never be forgotten is that angels are pure intellect, and the devil is a fallen angel. Hence, if we assume our intelligence is high, the angels shake their virtual heads and the devils rub their virtual hands. While I was mouthing the words of the Creed but living a humanist or agnostic life, the devil's work was already done. Voltaire, the writer who made a living attacking the Catholic Church so long ago, once advised a person who wanted to leave the Church on how he could stop believing that the Eucharist was the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus. Voltaire told him to continue committing sins and receiving the Eucharist until it blunted his faith so badly that the Eucharist became just a wafer, just a piece of bread. As it turns out, Voltaire understood spiritual warfare extremely well, because he articulated exactly what has happened to millions of “faithful” Catholics. This is exactly how faith dies, because saying the Creed and receiving the Eucharist does nothing without Confession and conversion of the heart and kneeling and asking God for help. Once disobedience in living for God has taken root, the outward actions of faith become false. The entire idea of “believe in yourself” casts God out immediately, but of course, when we turn from God we only cast ourselves out. Either a Creator made the world, or it has always existed. This was the presented options from Church and from public school. Today, for me, it takes far less faith to believe that time and space came from a Creator God who made it “out of nothing” than for time and space to have been created by…nothing. How much faith you need to believe that the universe is “self-existing”?! Far more than I can muster. But the public schooling and media propped up this absurdity for a long time simply by repeating this first principle of humanism in subtle and sundry ways. Is it any wonder people today are scattered and confused? If you have two opposed worldviews battling and rattling around in your head for power and control, chaos and disorder are the result. How could it not be? If I told you that up is down one minute, and down is up the next, it would be confusing. As Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Humanism, it turns out, is a crusade against standard Christian ideas like God, sin, the Fall, the need for redemption, eternal life, and so on. The summary statement of the humanist manifesto says something very old, in a kind of triumphant reiteration of the sophist Protagoras who said, “Man is the measure of all things” but with more words. The humanists even sum up their own manifesto with a flourish arguing that the fruit from the tree of Knowledge tastes better than that from the tree of Life:Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.Ah, the good life! Sounds good. And yes, “he alone” will bring the dream, the utopia! God need not apply. But really, all of this could be summed up more concisely, had they just said what my second-grade teacher had said, which was: “Believe in yourself.”This is what the architects of the public school system believed. Is it any wonder then that I became a humanist, when I had to sit in rooms for forty hours a week through the late 1980s and entire 1990s and early 2000s and listen to humanist sermons from humanist teachers? When you are feeling strong…and when it comes to an endWhile I was spinning in motion, on fast-forward all through the public school years, I could keep up the energy to believe in myself, so long as I achieved, believed, and had plenty of strength. This was a period of strength and motion, such that I could keep the illusion alive that I could will my destiny. I could have a good-looking girlfriend, win the game, ease the pain with a gallon of beer, work like a dog, get the grades, and fudge my way through life with a smile while my flaws were excused. Because one thing was clear: outside of the Church, the idea of sin only existed in getting caught. If all the right things were done, self-actualization would come. This is a lie. In Leo Tolstoy's short story, “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” the dying man has lived a successful life. He's done all the right things. He's punched his ticket at every proper stop on the secular journey of life. But in his last days, nearing the edge, he peers into the nothingness. Looking back on his life of “right” choices that made him a respected person with a good career, he wonders about the point of his life and career. The gaping mouth of the Big Empty is looking at Ivan when he muses: "Then what does it mean? Why? It can't be that life is so senseless and horrible. But if it really has been so horrible and senseless, why must I die and die in agony? There is something wrong!"Maybe I did not live as I ought to have done," it suddenly occurred to him. "But how could that be, when I did everything properly?" he replied, and immediately dismissed from his mind this, the sole solution of all the riddles of life and death, as something quite impossible.Oh, it's unfair, cries Ivan! Like a Pharisee, he had done all the external actions needed to be whole, to be self-actualized, and to be at peace. Yet he is not at peace in his heart - he is at terror. Why? Because he didn't choose the right things. He chose the wrong things. Career and success are good things, but they are lesser things. Ivan Ilyich is at a loss because he chose the things that the culture valued, not what his heart and God value. A life of fear chases things, and I know it well. But Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”When I was living like Ivan Ilyich, as all body, achievement, and reputation, I had no concern for the soul or God. Then the illusion of strength and accomplishment painted me into a corner. Ivan's second chance comes in the weeks of his death, when he is weak. I was feeling strong, most of the time, and in those days I could indeed “Believe in myself.” But when the down periods came and the tank was empty, the great sadness came with it. A lesson in life was being taught that, when I am feeling strong, I have grand ideas about life, justice, and mercy. But when I am weak, those feelings change. Weakness is never far away either, as a simple cold or flu can collapse the whole facade. Any crack in the armor can cause the rust to begin, and we become brittle. Aging is a great teacher, as Ivan Ilyich learned. On some of the darkest days, even after winning a game, or getting a grade, or getting a raise at work, I could not hold back the swell of emotion that made me think of ending my life. This glorious, gifted, unique, special, life - where I “believed in myself” and “followed my heart” and “was perfect just the way I was” - I could not explain why I was so lost. On those days I thought of veering into a semi-truck. And even if a girlfriend or my mom asked me, “What's wrong?” I had no words. None whatsoever. There was nothing that I could tell them, because I myself had no idea what was wrong. For someone to have everything, and yet be utterly empty, made no sense to me. This is why for a long time I assumed I needed anti-depression medication. I needed a button to push, a technique, a material solution. I didn't understand that the entire problem was spiritual. When the booze stopped working, the pills took main stage. And when the pills stopped working, I knew that I'd been trying to turn on a light using the wrong switch. The pyramid of self-actualization was not wired to anything but myself, and I had lost the ability to believe in myself any longer. 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

Soren Kierkegaard on the Self and God  “The greatest hazard of all, losing one's self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all” - Soren Kierkegaard. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?—Jesus, Mark 8:36. The Human Condition: Who Are We? A. Philosophical problem: philosophical anthropology i. What is our nature? ii. What is our problem? iii. What is good for humans? B. Existential problem of being human under the sun i. How do we cope with our nature? ii. How do we address our problem? iii. How do we embrace the good and shun the bad? C. The Theme in Philosophy in Seven Sentences All of our philosophical sentences invoke or provoke the self, but from different angles. Protagoras brings it all back to the self, which is the measure of all things. I measured Protagoras wrong. Socrates exhorts the self to examine itself for truth for as long as it takes. For that, he should be commended and emulated. For Aristotle, our nature as human selves is to seek knowledge. He was right. Descartes finds certainty in his indubitable awareness that he is thinking and thus an existing being who has the concept of an infinite God in his mind. We could find worse places to start our investigations. Pascal exhorts us to consider reasons of the heart, that aspect of self that knows directly and intuitively. Groothuis, Douglas. Philosophy in Seven Sentences: A Small Introduction to a Vast Topic (p. 124). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.   Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Ultimately, I think the fundamental question we tumble into, like rolling down a mountain of sharp, rocky points, bloodied and bruised at the bottom of the Mountain of Life time and time again, is, “What are we supposed to do with this life?” The philosophers phrase this question in many ways: What is good? What is God? What is truth? What is kindness? Why do we gather together? What are the best ways to gather together? Why do we rule and consent to be ruled, and what are the ways to do that?  On and on and on.  But, really, isn't the question also about work, action, energy, initiative, direction, drive, desire, purpose? “What do I do next?”  My thinking about activity and work as paramount might be because I've got it on the brain because I'm reading Work by James Suzman. But, if not work, then play? And if not play, then charitable helping? And if not charitable helping, then family or friends?  We are alive. We are doing things.  In that vein, this rambling (and, yes, I'm the one who gets lost during the conversation and is always trying to get found) chat between me and my favorite Greek mirrors the wandering ways of our first conversation. We've talked before—last time about Thucydides.  We were going to talk about Plato's Protagoras. But we hint at another dialogue that focuses, like Protagoras, on sophists, guys who get paid to teach other people how to sway people in conversation or debate. That's Gorgias. But then we were going to talk about Aristotle.  My favorite part, by far, of this conversation is the end: Georgios' analogy of “Society as a Board Game.” Don't miss it. And Socrates' answer? Well … that's the last few seconds of the podcast …   So, all that to say, if you get lost, go read a translation of either of those dialogues. Here are two:  I read Jowett's translation of Protagoras, and I suspect Georgios did, too. Here ya go.  And Jowett's Gorgias? Tada.  The picture? That's supposed to be Protagoras. But my buddy told me last time I stuck in a bust of an ancient, I got it wrong. So ... I think this is Protagoras.

Rachel Barney is Professor of Classics and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. She received her PhD at Princeton and has taught at the University of Ottawa, Harvard, and the University of Chicago. She has worked widely across ancient philosophy, from the sophists to the Neoplatonists, though her primary focus is on Plato. In this episode, Robinson and Rachel discuss the sophists, beginning with just who they were and why they have been so maligned in contemporary discourse—even the word sophist today has pejorative connotations—and continuing through some of their most important thinkers, like Gorgias and Protagoras. Check out Rachel's last book, Plato and the Divided Self (Cambridge University Press, 2012). OUTLINE: 00:00 In This Episode... 00:34 Introduction 04:28 Rachel's Interest in Ancient Philosophy 09:49 Misunderstanding the Sophists 20:04 What Displaced the Sophists' Philosophical Practices? 26:17 Philosophy and Protophilosophy 29:39 The Main Sophists 33:43 Gorgias and Non-Being 53:37 On Protagoras 1:07:40 Religion and the Sophists 1:12:55 More on Protagoras 1:17:50 Virtue in Homer and Hesiod 1:28:05 Ancient Philosophy and How to Live Robinson's Website: ⁠http://robinsonerhardt.com⁠ Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated. If you enjoy our content, why not buy us a cup of coffee? via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist Check out our first book, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE IMPLODING OF AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR'S WORLDVIEW https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Wise/author/B0BXHHKW4V?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

Today we begin our discussion of Plato's Theaetetus. We start by considering how some of our friends answered the question: What is knowledge? Then, we discuss the difference between knowledge and the kinds of knowledge and we briefly go over Socrates' famous midwife passage. We end by inquiring in a preliminary way into the relationship between Theaetetus's claim that knowledge is perception and Protagoras's that man is the measure of all things.

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated. If you enjoy our content, why not buy us a cup of coffee? via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist Check out our first book, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE IMPLODING OF AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR'S WORLDVIEW https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Wise/author/B0BXHHKW4V?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

Protagoras

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated. If you enjoy our content, why not buy us a cup of coffee? via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist Check out our first book, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE IMPLODING OF AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR'S WORLDVIEW https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Wise/author/B0BXHHKW4V?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated. If you enjoy our content, why not buy us a cup of coffee? via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist Check out our first book, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE IMPLODING OF AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR'S WORLDVIEW https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Wise/author/B0BXHHKW4V?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated. If you enjoy our content, why not buy us a cup of coffee? via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist Check out our first book, THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: THE IMPLODING OF AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR'S WORLDVIEW https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Wise/author/B0BXHHKW4V?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

The Apology is one of the most important texts in all of Western thought. Prior to the explicit dumbing down of Western education accomplished in the 20th century's Marxist educational revolution, knowledge of Socrates' trial and death was one of the anchors of Western cultural awareness. If we are to recover our culture we must return to our foundations, and Plato is the perfect place to start! The Apology is Plato's account of Socrates' defense (which is what the Greek word apologeo means) before an Athenian jury of 501 citizens. It is ironic that the English transliteration of the Greek term carries connotations of saying “I'm sorry,” because this type of apology is nowhere to be found in Socrates' speech. All trials of this type in Athens were required to be completed in a single day. The order of the trial was: 1) prosecution's case, which we do not have, 2) defendant's case (this is the point at which the Apology opens), 3) jury deliberation and verdict, 4) penalty phase, in which both the prosecution and the defense propose a penalty for those found guilty, 5) jury deliberation on penalty, and 6) closing words of the defendant. As necessary background for the Apology, we must review some information on the paid itinerant teachers called Sophists. The most famous of these teachers was Protagoras, who famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things.” “Sophist” means ‘wise one,' though by Plato and Socrates' time it had morphed into a less-than-flattering appellation. As a result, our English term “sophistry” means clever but misleading reasoning. The reason for this reversal of meaning is that the Sophists were relativists, who taught rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. If, as Protagoras maintained, all standards are human in origin, then there is no right and wrong. Much of Socrates' speech in the Apology is meant to distance himself from the Sophists, with whom he was popularly associated.   If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured  https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords  https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com  #plato, #socrates, #platoandsocrates, #socratesandplato, #euthyphro, #republic, #westerntradition, #philosophy, #rationality, #drjohndwise, #philosopher, #philosophical, #philosophicalauthor #westerntraditionphilosophy, #traditionalphilosophy, #foundations, #foundationalphilosopher, #foundationaltext, #platosrepublic, #philosophy, #dialogue, #dialogues, #greekphilosophy, #ancientgreekphilosophy, #athens, #platonicdialogue, #platonic, #ancientgreeks, #ancientgreece,#hellen, #hellenistic, #athenian, #atheniantradition, #greekcivilization, #greeksociety, #greekhistory #euthyphro #plato #socrates #socraticdialogue #trialofsocrates #piety #justice #aporia #socraticirony

In this episode, I discuss and recite one of the most important philosophical speeches in history — the Great Discourse or Great Speech of the Sophist Protagoras, from Plato's dialogue Protagoras. This speech contains some remarkable imagery and ideas, which clearly foreshadow many later ideas about social virtue and politics in Greek and Roman philosophy, from Socrates to the Stoics, and beyond.Thank you for reading Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life. This post is public so feel free to share it.Highlights* Introducing the Great Speech, and why it is so important* Reading an excerpt from Plato's Protagoras, containing the speech* Summary of the key points, in plain English* The speech can be seen as containing a kind of proto-evolutionary theory of social virtue* Can the capacity for virtue be seen as universal?* Can virtue can be taught?Thank you for reading Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life. This post is public so feel free to share it.My Synopsis of The Great DiscourseAt first there were gods but no mortal creatures.  When the time came, the gods fashioned countless animals by mixing together the elements of fire and earth.  Zeus then commanded Prometheus, the Titan, to assign different abilities to each living thing.  Some creatures were naturally slow and so he gave them great strength.  Others were weak and so to these Prometheus granted speed.  Some he armed while others were given various forms of protection.  Small creatures were granted the capability for winged flight or for concealing their dwellings underground.  Large beasts had their size for protection.  And he took care to grant all creatures some means for their own preservation so that no species should be in danger of elimination by others.  Having equipped them to survive among each other in this way he proceeded to grant them protection against their environment and the harshness of the seasons.  He clothed some creatures with dense hair or thick skin, sufficient to endure the heat of summer and ward off the cold through winter months.  To some he gave strong hooves, to others claws and hides that did not shed much blood.  And every creature was assigned its own source of food. Some pastured on the earth, others ate fruits hanging from trees or roots from beneath the ground.  Yet others were predators who fed upon other animals for their meat.  To these he assigned limited offspring whereas their prey were more abundant so that there would always be enough to serve as food.  However, having assigned to each species its own special capabilities, Prometheus realized that he had nothing left to give the race of man.  Humans are born naked, unshod, unarmed, and with no bed in which to lay their head and rest safely.  Not knowing what else to do, Prometheus stole the technical wisdom of the gods Hephaestus and Athena and gave it to mankind, along with the gift of fire.Once men were granted these divine gifts, they sensed their kinship to the gods and began to pray and build altars to them.  They invented clothing, bedding, dwellings, agriculture, and even the use of language to express their thoughts and acquire learning.  Men lived apart at first but finding themselves beset continually and harassed by wild beasts they sought to build cities for their own mutual protection.However, the wisdom that concerns our relations with others belonged to Zeus alone, king of the gods and patron of friendship and families.  No sooner than men gathered together trying to save themselves, being lawless, they began instead to wrong one another and fight among themselves.  And so scattering once again from their failed cities, they continued to perish in the wild.Looking down upon this chaotic scene with dismay, Zeus feared for the destruction of the entire human race.  He therefore sent Hermes, the messenger of the gods, to teach mortals about justice and to imbue them with a sense of shame concerning wrongdoing. By this means Zeus now granted mankind the capacity to unite themselves in cities, maintaining order through the bonds of friendship and a sense of community.  Hermes asked Zeus whether he should distribute justice, and other social and political arts, among men in the same way as technical knowledge concerning other crafts.  One man who possesses the knowledge of medicine, he said, was enough to benefit many men, and so on.  However, Zeus decreed that every human being must be granted some knowledge of justice and the arts needed to unite society.  He even laid down the law that anyone who was found unable to respect justice and the rule of law should be put to death, being a plague on the city.  For this reason, said Protagoras, we seek the advice only of those few who are experts with regard to crafts such as medicine or carpentry but concerning justice we allow every citizen to have his say.  Further, if someone boasts of being an expert in playing the flute or some such art but is nothing of the sort then he is ridiculed for his folly.  However, anyone who claims not to participate in justice risks being expelled from society because each and every citizen is expected to share at least somewhat in this capacity, which allows him to live harmoniously in the company of others. Get full access to Stoicism: Philosophy as a Way of Life at donaldrobertson.substack.com/subscribe

“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

"Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. what we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends on what we look for. What we look for depends on what we think. What we think depends on what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality." -Bohm, 1977 "...without the making of theories I am convinced there would be no observation" -Darwin, 1860 letter to Lyell "It is only the nonbeliever who believes that the believer believes." -Jean Pouillon "To believe is to know you believe, and to know you believe is not to believe." -Sartre

In the dialogue of Protagoras, Socrates and Protagoras are exploring the idea/question of virtue(highest morality) that can be taught. Protagoras the Sophist who has been running around Athens teaching virtue meet Socrates. Socrates is asking Protagoras if virtue can really be taught.Erick Nganyange and Professor Ron are looking at virtue in our current society.Thank you for listening.You can contact us @: ericknga7@gmail.comTeacher: Ron Cline Student: Erick Nganyange

I Platon-dialogen "Protagoras" får Sokrates følgende spørsmål: "Hva er mat for sjelen?", og det slo oss at både spørsmålet og svaret er like relevant i dag som for 2500 år siden. All den informasjonen du eksponerer deg for i løpet av den dag, hva gjør den med deg? Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/mindfulness-med-viggo-and-filip. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode 143 - Diogenes of Oinoanda (Part 3) The Superiority of The Epicurean Viewpoint on "Gods"Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Three 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 will continue with the Inscription of Diogenes of Oinoanda, and discuss Epicurean view of the superiority of their point of view about divinity over the supernatural religious views of much of the rest of the world. Now let's join Joshua reading today's text, starting with Fragment 16:Fr. 16 ..... and [they vehemently] denounce the [most pious people] as [atheistic]. And in fact it will become evident that it is not we [who deny] the [gods, but others.] Thus [Diagoras of Melos, with certain others who closely followed his] theory, categorically asserted that gods do not exist and [vigorously] attacked [all those who thought otherwise.] Protagoras of Abdera in effect put forward the same view as Diagoras, but expressed it differently to avoid its excessive audacity. For he said that he did not know whether gods exist, which is the same as saying that he knew that they do not exist. If indeed he had balanced the first statement with «However, I do not know that they do not exist,» [perhaps] he [would] almost have a [circumlocution] to [avoid the appearance of denying] the gods completely. [But he said] «I do not know that they exist,» [and not] «I do not know that they do not exist,» doing [exactly] the same [as Diagoras, who indefatigably did not stop] saying that [he did] not [know] that they exist. ....Fr. 19 [Let us then contradict Homer, who] talks [all sorts of nonsense] about them, [representing them sometimes as adulterers, sometimes as] lame, [sometimes as thievish, or even as being struck by mortals with a spear,] as well as inducing the craftsmen to produce inappropriate portrayals. Some statues of gods shoot arrows and are produced holding] a bow, [represented] like Heracles in Homer; others are attended by a body-guard of wild beasts; others are angry with the prosperous, like Nemesis according to popular opinion; whereas we ought to make statues of the gods genial and smiling, so that we may smile back at them rather than be afraid of them. Well, then, you people, let us reverence the gods [rightly] both at festivals and on [unhallowed occasions, both] publicly [and privately], and let us observe the customs [of our fathers in relation to them and let not the imperishable beings be falsely accused at all] by us [in our vain fear that they are responsible for all misfortunes], bringing [sufferings to us] and [contriving burdensome obligations] for themselves. ,,,,Fr. 20 [So it is obvious that wrong-doers, given that they do not fear the penalties imposed by the laws, are not] afraid of [the gods.] This [has to be] conceded. For if they were [afraid, they] would not [do wrong]. As for [all] the others, [it is my opinion] that the [wise] are not [(reasoning indicates) righteous] on account of the gods, but on account of [thinking] correctly and the [opinions] they hold [regarding] certain things [and especially] pains and death (for indeed invariably and without exception human beings do wrong either on account of fear or on account of pleasures), and that ordinary people on the other hand are righteous, in so far as they are righteous, on account of the laws and the penalties, imposed by the laws, hanging over them. But even if some of their number are conscientious on account of the laws, they are few: only just two or three individuals are to be found among great segments of multitudes, and not even these are steadfast in acting righteously; for they are not soundly persuaded about providence. A clear indication of the complete inability of the gods to prevent wrong-doings is provided by the nations of the Jews and Egyptians, who, as well as being the most superstitious of all peoples, are the vilest of all peoples. On account of what kind of gods, then, will human beings be righteous? For they are not righteous on account of the real ones or on account of Plato's and Socrates' Judges in Hades. We are left with this conclusion; otherwise, why should not those who disregard the laws scorn fables much more? So, with regard to righteousness, neither does our doctrine do harm [nor does] the opposite [doctrine help], while, with regard to the other condition, the opposite doctrine not only does not help, but on the contrary also does harm, whereas our doctrine not only does not harm, but also helps. For the one removes disturbances, while the other adds them, as has already been made clear to you before.That not only [is our doctrine] helpful, [but also the opposite doctrine harmful, is clearly shown by] the [Stoics as they go astray. For they say in opposition to us] that the god both is maker of [the] world and takes providential care of it, providing for all things, including human beings. Well, in the first place, we come to this question: was it, may I ask, for his own sake that the god created the world [or for the sake of human beings? For it is obvious that it was from a wish to benefit either himself or human beings that he embarked on this] undertaking. For how could it have been otherwise, if nothing is produced without a cause and these things are produced by a god? Let us then examine this view and what Stoics mean. It was, they say, from a wish to have a city and fellow-citizens, just as if [he were an exile from a city, that] the god [created the world and human beings. However, this supposition, a concoction of empty talking, is] self-evidently a fable, composed to gain the attention of an audience, not a natural philosopher's argument searching for the truth and inferring from probabilities things not palpable to sense. Yet even if, in the belief that he was doing some good [to himself, the god] really [made the world and human beings], ................. For god [is, I say], a living being, indestructible [and] blessed from [age to] age, having complete [self-sufficiency]. Moreover, what [god, if] he had existed for infinite [time] and enjoyed tranquillity [for thousands of years, would have got] this idea that he needed a city and fellow-citizens? Add to this absurdity that he, being a god, should seek to have beings as fellow-citizens. And there is this further point too: if he had created the world as a habitation and city for himself, I seek to know where he was living before the world was created; I do not find an answer, at any rate not one consistent with the doctrine of these people when they declare that this world is unique. So for that infinite time, apparently, the god of these people was cityless and homeless and, like an unfortunate man — I do not say «god» —, having neither city nor fellow-citizens, he was destitute and roaming about at random. If therefore the divine nature shall be deemed to have created things for its own sake, all this is absurd; and if for the sake of men, there are yet other more absurd consequences.

In Plato's Protagoras there is an incident where one of Socrates's young friend Hippocrates (not the Hippocrates of medicine) comes knocking at his door early morning and tells him with so much excitement that Protagoras is in town…. Socrates then asks him “What is the matter? Has Protagoras robbed you of anything? For which Hippocrates gives a very interesting answer…. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/penpositive/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/penpositive/support