Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Philosophy

Providence and Natural Reason

by Leave a Comment

Epictetus, the former slave turned stoic philosopher, made an eccentric argument for God’s providence in the smallest of human affairs. He argues by reducing to absurdity, as far as he can manage, four the five following views:

  1. There is no god.
  2. There is a god who is unconcerned for the cosmos.
  3. There is a god who cares for the heavenly sphere only.
  4. There is a god who cares for the general affairs on earth, not the details.
  5. There is a god who cares for the affairs of men.

“Concerning gods, there are first those who say there is no divinity. Secondly, that there is but he is lazy (inactive) and unconcerned; and he makes no plans concerning anything. Thirdly, there are those who say that he exists and makes plans, rather only for the great and heavenly things, but for those of earth, nothing. Fourthly, there are those who say he makes plans for things upon the earth and the things of humanity, but in general and not for each one. Fifthly, there are those like Odysseus and Socrates who say, “Whither I move, I escape not your notice.” 

Epictetus 1.121.  Epictetus. Epicteti Dissertationes Ab Arriano Digestae. Medford, MA: B. G. Teubner, 1916. Print. 1.12, “[1]Περὶ θεῶν οἱ μέν τινές εἰσιν οἱ λέγοντες μηδʼ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, οἱ δʼ εἶναι μέν, ἀργὸν δὲ καὶ ἀμελὲς καὶ μὴ προνοεῖν μηδενός· [2] τρίτοι δʼ οἱ καὶ εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν μεγάλων καὶ οὐρανίων, τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ γῆς μηδενός· τέταρτοι δʼ οἱ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, εἰς κοινὸν δὲ μόνον καὶ οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ἑκάστου· [3] πέμπτοι δʼ, ὧν ἦν καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Σωκράτης, οἱ λέγοντες ὅτι οὐδέ σε λήθω Κινύμενος.”

So those are the five positions. His arguments against them, at a first pass, seem rather empty. They hinge on one assertion, “One ought to follow the gods.” But if there are no gods, then the assertion is worthless, or worse, because it isn’t harmless but harmful, as one who follows the gods follows delusions rather than wisdom. Here’s his refutation:

Therefore, before anything else, it is necessary to inquire into each to these, [to determine] if it is sound or unsound to affirm it. For is there are no gods, how is it our purpose to follow them? 2. Epictetus simply assumes that following the gods is the standard human goal for any thoughtful person. If then, on the other hand, they [the gods] exist and are unconcerned, how can this [to follow them] be sound? But if in fact, they exist and they care, but if there is no communication to humanity from them, and for that matter neither any to me, how is it [to follow them/the life of ethics] sound? Therefore, all these things considered, the good and beautiful man intends to submit himself to the one who manages the whole just as the good citizens submit themselves to the law of the city-state.

Epictetus 1.12 3. [4]Πολὺ πρότερον οὖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περὶ ἑκάστου τούτων ἐπεσκέφθαι, πότερα ὑγιῶς ἢ οὐχ ὑγιῶς λεγόμενόν ἐστιν. ειʼ γὰρ μὴ εἰσὶν θεοί, πῶς ἐστι τέλος ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς; [5] ειʼ δʼ εἰσὶν μέν, μηδενὸς δʼ ἐπιμελούμενοι, καὶ οὕτως πῶς ὑγιὲς ἔσται; [6] ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ ὄντων καὶ ἐπιμελομένων ειʼ μηδεμία διάδοσις εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐστὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ νὴ Δία γε καὶ εἰς ἐμέ, πῶς ἔτι καὶ οὕτως ὑγιές ἐστιν; [7] πάντα οὖν ταῦτα ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐπεσκεμμένος τὴν αὑτοῦ γνώμην ὑποτέταχεν τῷ διοικοῦντι τὰ ὅλα καθάπερ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ πολῖται τῷ νόμῳ τῆς πόλεως.”

Now, in many places, Epictetus argues for God’s existence, as the one who orders all things (and he from this appears to infer the existence of gods as well) from the order of all things and from the rational mind of humanity. But he does not refer to those arguments here. He basically says, “If one is to follow the gods, it cannot be true that they do not exist, do not care, or do not communicate with us. Since we must follow the gods, these propositions cannot be true.” So what gives? What makes “following the gods” an axiom of rational life? I think I have five answers:

  1. In Stoic philosophy, there were three orders of discourse: ethics [right, wrong, happiness, politics, etc], logic [the laws of thought, nature of consciousness, rhetoric, grammar, etc], and physics [the nature of things, cause and effect, etc]. Ethics was conceived of as simultaneously the art of discovering right from wrong and the art of flourishing. “One ought to follow the gods” is a necessary postulate for moral reasoning. So it’s as if Epictetus was saying, “If one is obligated to do right/be happy, then god must be real.”
  2. The gods were seen as either interminably separated from us or that but condescendingly kind to our nature. This is taken to the nth degree in Christian theology. Epictetus, elsewhere says that human beings bear the image of God in their minds [Discourse 2.8]. So the idea is that a monotheistic God [orderer of all things] and the various minor gods represent the ideals of human nature. So much so, by the way, that elsewhere Epictetus says that the human mind is equal to Zeus’ mind in its capacity to avoid evil and choose goodness.

So if we accept that gods are, at the least, mythic representations of indispensable human ideals, then maybe the gods are indispensable. But this argument doesn’t quite satisfy unless we grant the gods some existence outside of the human mind, as that existence is precisely the point. But if God is the necessary postulate of moral science because otherwise moral imperatives have no force behind them, then his argument is at least reasonable, if not sound. “We must as good as possible, only the gods are consistently as good as possible, therefore we must follow the gods. Corollary: If there is such a state as, “as good as possible,” there must be gods to emulate.”

I find Epictetus’ view of God’s providence to be enriching if slightly anemic as Satan is a missing figure. But his view of providence allows for comparing any man seeking to do the right thing in the face of trouble to Hercules fighting the boar and overcoming the challenges before him. This view is harder to hold in the teeth of the evils of the world that harm children, but Epictetus knew the evil of this life and perhaps better than any who live today. Either way, whatever faces us is a challenge from God to do the good, somehow, even Satan in all his anti-providence, becomes for us an obstacle to overcome and finally, being overcome, simply a step along to path of Christ to God who makes us more than conquerors.

References

References
↑1  Epictetus. Epicteti Dissertationes Ab Arriano Digestae. Medford, MA: B. G. Teubner, 1916. Print. 1.12, “[1]Περὶ θεῶν οἱ μέν τινές εἰσιν οἱ λέγοντες μηδʼ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, οἱ δʼ εἶναι μέν, ἀργὸν δὲ καὶ ἀμελὲς καὶ μὴ προνοεῖν μηδενός· [2] τρίτοι δʼ οἱ καὶ εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν μεγάλων καὶ οὐρανίων, τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ γῆς μηδενός· τέταρτοι δʼ οἱ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, εἰς κοινὸν δὲ μόνον καὶ οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ἑκάστου· [3] πέμπτοι δʼ, ὧν ἦν καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Σωκράτης, οἱ λέγοντες ὅτι οὐδέ σε λήθω Κινύμενος.”
↑2 Epictetus simply assumes that following the gods is the standard human goal for any thoughtful person.
↑3 [4]Πολὺ πρότερον οὖν ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι περὶ ἑκάστου τούτων ἐπεσκέφθαι, πότερα ὑγιῶς ἢ οὐχ ὑγιῶς λεγόμενόν ἐστιν. ειʼ γὰρ μὴ εἰσὶν θεοί, πῶς ἐστι τέλος ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς; [5] ειʼ δʼ εἰσὶν μέν, μηδενὸς δʼ ἐπιμελούμενοι, καὶ οὕτως πῶς ὑγιὲς ἔσται; [6] ἀλλὰ δὴ καὶ ὄντων καὶ ἐπιμελομένων ειʼ μηδεμία διάδοσις εἰς ἀνθρώπους ἐστὶν ἐξ αὐτῶν καὶ νὴ Δία γε καὶ εἰς ἐμέ, πῶς ἔτι καὶ οὕτως ὑγιές ἐστιν; [7] πάντα οὖν ταῦτα ὁ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς ἐπεσκεμμένος τὴν αὑτοῦ γνώμην ὑποτέταχεν τῷ διοικοῦντι τὰ ὅλα καθάπερ οἱ ἀγαθοὶ πολῖται τῷ νόμῳ τῆς πόλεως.”

Gloria Steinem is an Idiot

by Leave a Comment

Steinem argued in the 1980s that opposing abortion is actually a secret form of Nazism, and she repeats the argument in an interview below:

Well, the new generation of reader is instructing me by saying that these essays are still relevant …. on a more serious note, to put it mildly, is why Hitler was actually elected, and he was elected and he campaigned against abortion. I mean, that was — he padlocked the family planning clinics. Okay, so that is still relevant in the terms of the right wing. So there were very few things, actually, that I had to take out.

Forget the historical improprieties. The main thing is this: Some people feel that you can argue against literally any idea by citing the Holocaust.

Here’s another example:

In a discussion of the symbols and/or actuality of transcendent being, Rebecca Goldstein says that Jordan Peterson’s use of Christian symbols and William Craig’s belief in a transcendent God make her very nervous because…the Nazis felt transcendent. As she begins to say it, she obviously feels it is nonsense but says it anyway. But the idea is basically that, “You guys are basically Nazis.”

So what’s my point: Godwin’s law is actually an iron clad counterpoint for anything. You’re against abortion: Hitler. You believe in God or symbolism: Hitler. You’re a Zionist: Hitler. You think Islam is wrong: Hitler.

This sourthpark skit is our reality now:

Were the Spartans Pederasts?

by 2 Comments

A great deal of “the literature” about ancient Sparta includes the citizens of that great city in the numbers of those ancient Greek perverts who practiced pederasty.

Paul Cartledge is among the many academicians who have accepted this myth:

One particularly striking instance of this displaced or surrogate fathering was the institution of ritualized pederasty. After the age of twelve, every Spartan teenager was expected to receive a young adult warrior as his lover – the technical Spartan term for the active senior partner was ‘inspirer’, while the junior partner was known as the ‘hearer’. The relationship was probably usually sexual, but sex was by no means the only or even always the major object. The pedagogic dimension is nicely brought out in the tale of a Spartan youth who made the mistake of crying out in pain during one of the regular brutally physical contests that punctuated progress through the Agoge.

Paul Cartledge, Sparta: An Epic History

But where are the sources for this? Well, I found two ancient sources that mention adult to child relationships in Sparta:

I think I ought to say something also about intimacy with boys, since this matter also has a bearing on education. In other Greek states, for instance among the Boeotians, man and boy live together, like married people; elsewhere, among the Eleians, for example, consent is won by means of favours. Some, on the other hand, entirely forbid suitors to talk with boys.
The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy’s soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy’s outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other.
I am not surprised, however, that people refuse to believe this. For in many states the laws are not opposed to the indulgence of these appetites. I have now dealt with the Spartan system of education, and that of the other Greek states. Which system turns out men more obedient, more respectful, and more strictly temperate, anyone who chooses may once more judge for himself.

Xenophon, The Polity of Sparta 2:12-14

So, while Xenophon speaks of ideal friendship, here, it can in no way mean anything sexual. This, by the way, is a major theme in the Memorabilia of Socrates. Now, one could make the case that Xenophon is not the greatest of historians, but the source we have is the source we have. And he claims that among the Spartans, ideal friendship was encouraged among old men and their wards, but that pederasty was an abomination. There is a ring of plausibility to this because Xenophon notes that the Spartan laws were unique among the Greek states, and this is a theme in other writers as well.

The other key source is quite late, but it may nevertheless be valuable. From the Historical Miscellany of Claudius Aelian:

Of the Lacedemonian Ephori I could relate many excellent things said and done; at present I shall only tell you this: If amongst them any man preferred in Friendship a rich man before another that was poor and virtuous, they fined him, punishing his avarice with loss of money. If any other that were a virtuous person professed particular friendship to none, they fined him also, because being virtuous he would not make choice of a friend ; whereas he might render him he loved like himself, and perhaps divers ; for affection of friends conduces much to the advance virtue in those whom they love, if they be temperate and virtuous. There was also this Law among the Lacedemonians; If any young man transgressed, they pardoned him, imputing it to want of years and experience ; yet punished his friend, as conscious and overseer of his actions.

Book III, X

The passage above, while almost certainly too late (third century) to be considered a key piece of evidence about Spartan friendship, is used as a moralizing tail about the nature of friendship. Now, Claudius leaned Stoic in his outlook, and the Stoics, at least as far back as Musonius Rufus thought homosexuality was against nature. What this means is that he was almost certainly not writing with a nodding approval toward pederasty here. He was, rather, using the culture of friendship in a unique and powerful city as an example for his curious readers. Scholars, for reasons I dare not speculate upon, take the passage above to be evidence of Spartan friendship being pederastic. The evidence is entirely against such a perspective.

Historian Helena Schrader does a good job further ripping the Myth of Spartan Pederasty to shreds from a similar but distinct angle:

In conclusion, contemporary sources suggest that Sparta was not a particularly homoerotic society, and certainly there was no institutionalized pederasty or homosexual behavior prior to the mid-5th century BC. On the contrary, in Sparta women’s sexuality was not only recognized but respected and to a degree encouraged.  Spartan artifacts furthermore suggest that Sparta was indeed more prudish than other Greek societies.  The evidence suggests that sex in Sparta was a private matter, sought inside marriage, rather than public entertainment pursued at symposia and on the streets as in Athens. The Spartan ideal of sex was an activity between equals, not an act of domination by an adult male upon a child, a slave, or an illiterate and powerless wife. 

The Parody of Modern Conservative Ideology

by Leave a Comment

Conservatives rarely conserve anything. This is well known.

What they like to do is make conservative cases for making society worse. For instance:

henever you find an article that begins with the title, “The Conservative Case” for or against something, lock your door, check your wallet, and grab your gun. You know what’s coming is an unadulterated sell-out of everything “conservatism” purports to hold dear.

The words directly following the ellipses usually denote some obviously non-conservative thing, like “a $5 trillion budget” or “transgender bathrooms” or “4-foot-11, 80-pound female Navy SEALS.” Do any liberals ever write “a liberal case” for something obviously conservative, such as the traditional two-parent family or constitutional originalism?

No, this self-sabotaging practice is unique to the American Right, which perhaps helps explain why it’s in such disarray.

Publius Decius Mus

Here are some examples:


Now, an even better one:


What does this mean? It means that the same neo-cons (I’m not including Trump, who likely doesn’t care about homosexual marriage one way or another) who opposed gay marriage in the United States just a few years ago, used their influence in American foreign policy formulation to use gay-rights in Iran and elsewhere as a pretext for more infinite foreign wars. The conservative case for sending your sons to die for the right to engage in a practice condemned by conservatives in a country hostile to your way a life. The conservative case for more government spending to support rights abroad we oppose in our land. The conservative case for making your grandchildren live in a world unrecognizable to you. The conservative case for being a loser.

The Foolish Atheist

by Leave a Comment

Bruce Charlton comments on an atheist who didn’t follow his folly far enough:

Dawkins is a good example of one who refused to follow his path of excess to the palace of wisdom; because he was not even aiming at wisdom; he refused to persist in his folly, hence he remained a fool rather than becoming wise.

Two examples. The book Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) was an exercise in distraction, a non sequitur in response to the century-plus of observations that If natural selection were indeed regarded the ultimate truth, Then art, poetry, morality, science (including natural selection) and much else are invalidated.

(This is a fact; because all our feelings, indeed all our knowledge is revealed by the assumption as merely the side effects of adaptations to enhance reproductive success. For example, if natural selection is primary; the theory of natural selection destroys its own validity; all scientific theories being merely side-effects of the process of enhancing differential reproductive fitness.)

Essentially, one must reason this way in order to successfully adopt evolution and maintain a humanitarian and theistic worldview:

  1. If natural selection is the ultimate truth, then art, poetry, morality, science, and all endeavors of human beings are invalid.
  2. Human endeavors are valid.
  3. Therefore, natural selection is not the ultimate truth.

Anyway, read Dr. Charlton’s post. It’s great.

Defeating Self-Defeating Thoughts

by Leave a Comment

When you narrate your life, how do you write yourself? Personally, I have a long history of narrating myself as a loser, failure, or unfortunate person. If this is your struggle I found a helpful tool for you.

The reason that your self-narration is so important is that it affects your emotions, decisions, and ultimately your character. If the story you’re telling in your head is narrated by the voice of a jerk then you sacrifice your virtue as well as your personal power on the altar of self-pity. If you dramatically describe the tragedies of your life and how awful you are to an imaginary audience of zero, then you are wasting thoughts which could turn your attitudes to joy, your habits to virtue, and your demeanor to strength.

In Martin Seligman’s book Learned Optimism[1]. He outlines five steps for arguing with your self-doubts and while simple is usually better, simple is not always complete. His five aspects of self-talk are excellent. Here are my explanations of them below:

  1. Adversity – Whatever comes your way that leads you to either positive or negative explanations of yourself.
  2. Beliefs/Behaviour – The belief(s) that you base your self-talk on and the behaviors they lead to.
    You also reinforce those beliefs with your self-talk. You also reinforce those beliefs with destructive and unhelpful behaviors.
  3. Consequences – The consequences of your belief/self-talk/behaviors.
    For instance, saying, “I’m a loser,” won’t help fix your life. Saying, “I’m acting like a loser, but if I do [x] differently I can improve,” is more likely to give you a positive attitude. Also it’s important to ask, “What are the results of my behaviour when this adversity comes? Do they lead me to a place of strength, confidence, happiness, and virtue?”
  4. Dispute – This is where you argue with what you said or what you believe about yourself. Seligman recommends four possibilities for disputing:
    1. Evidence – This is important. Most hyper pessimistic thoughts are simply false and if you can distance yourself from them you can refute them by finding evidence to the contrary. You can also find evidence that things will get better. The forms of evidence can be found in the section called, “The Expanded Common Topics of Aristotle” below.
    2. Alternatives – Look for alternative explanations. Instead of “I’m a loser” say, “I messed up, I’ll fix it tomorrow.” Instead of “I always fail,” “This is hard, I’ll have to study longer.”
    3. Implications – If your negative belief is true, look for its implications. See what it means and how it connects to other truths. In a real way, this is just using the common topic of “cause and effect” or “antecedent and consequence.”
    4. Usefulness – Ask yourself, “Is this belief useful for attaining my goals?” If the answer is that the belief is hurting you, then reject it. I’m not a big fan of this approach, but it’s better than being stuck. Also, just because a belief is true does not mean you need to keep repeating it. “I messed up” said a million times in a row does not solve the problems created by the mistake.
    5. Alternatives – There are alternatives to disputing false beliefs and bad behaviors. You can distance yourself from them. This means realizing that beliefs are just beliefs. They may be the result of poor thinking, habit, or accidentally believing a lie. You can act based on what you wish to be true or hope to be true about yourself. Similarly, you can distract yourself. Do something that has nothing to do with the belief. Paint, exercise, cook, go to a coffee shop, anything but wallow. I highly recommend singing a song that is happier than you currently feel.
  5. Energize – Focus on the positive steps that you can and did take after disputing with your false/negative belief. This obviously corresponds with distracting yourself, but this step also includes energizing true beliefs by acting on behalf of them even when your feelings don’t measure up.

Now practice

Every skill requires indirect, “off the spot” training.

So, write these out. And think of specific times where your ABC had a negative belief and a bad consequence.

Then write out how you could have defeated that bad belief and acted (energized) in a more positive direction.

I recommend doing it several times. Try five, that’s a good number for strength training.

This is a thought-kata. A kata is a pattern for learning movements in martial arts. Katas must be practiced over and over again to until they become reflexes.

With practice, you’ll obtain a positive approach to your self-defeating ideas because the process will become a reflex, second nature.

Conclusion

Don’t let your inner jerk argue you into depression or helplessness. Use the best tools available, ancient and modern to destroy that jerk.

  1. Write the thought kata and practice it five times and see what you think.
  2. Use the common topics to perfect the art of refuting your inner-jerk.

Appendix: The Expanded Common Topic (types of argument) of Aristotle[2]:

The common topics are tools for building arguments. They are the ultimate tool for crushing writers’ block. The idea is that there are certain types of evidence to be used in any speech. It is important to categorize them so that you can research the various avenues of evidence and form an argument using the topics most convincing to your audience. Obviously, these can also be used to critique the arguments of others.

I recommend using the common topics not only as tools for rhetoric and argument, which I’ll write about in the future. For this post recommend using them to argue against a crappy mindset because they are forms of evidence and argument which will help you know yourself better and convince yourself to move on.

  1. Definition
    • Genus
    • Division
  2. Comparison
    • Similarity
    • Difference
    • Degree
  3. Relationship
    • Cause and effect
    • Antecedent and Consequent
    • Contraries
    • Contradictories
  4. Circumstance
    • Possible and Impossible
    • Past Fact and Future Fact
  5. Testimony
    • Authority
    • Testimonial
    • Statistics
    • Maxims
    • Laws
    • Precedents

Examples:
When some adversity comes your way and bad/negative beliefs come up and you want to argue against them here are examples using the different common topics:

  1. Definition – Using definitions to frame an argument.
    Negative Definition of Adversity: “Why do bad things always happen to me?”
    Positive Definition of Adversity: “How will I overcome this time?”
  2. Testimonial – Using a personal example from yourself or somebody else.
    Negative Belief – I have a bone disorder, I’m just a loser.
    Testimonial – Remember a story of somebody with a medical problem who succeeded.
  3. Authority – Appealing to an expert or an accepted body of knowledge.
    Negative Belief – I totally failed everybody, I’m the worst. I’ll never change.
    Appeal to Authority – The Bible says that people can change.
  4. Similarity – The comparison of similar things to yield new knowledge (argument by analogy)
    Negative Belief – I’m just a regular person, I can’t figure this stuff out.
    Similarity – This or that regular person is happy and takes ownership of like, I can too.

References

[1]  Martin E. P Seligman, Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life (New York: Vintage Books, 2006), 210-223

[2] Edward P.J Corbett and Robert J Connors, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 84-140