"(iv) The cosmos is not a living organism endowed with reason, and therefore Stoic-type Providence is out of the question. The Epicureans were right: we just need to endure life and do our best, there is no room for amor fati." Why is this point not also marked as "should be agnostic"? What conclusive evidence do we have to rule this option out? 🙂
In my struggle to comprehend this argument and also to come to terms with the various factions promoting and defending their positions, I must admit that I don’t really know the scope and depth needed to arrive at some confidence regarding this conundrum. Just recently, I have taken to listening to podcasts by “Bernardo Kastrup” -- who has a view that debunks where “materialism” took root after the burning of “Giordano Bruno” at the stake by the Catholic Church. Apparently as Science was in it’s beginning stages, in order to survive it had to find a way to placate Church authorities while it pursued it’s own line of questions without interference. And materialism was a tactic to fend off the encroachment of Church dogma. As the centuries passed the reason why materialism was taken up as part of the equation to understand the universe was forgotten and as result was never seriously challenged for it’s errors of reasoning -- until now.
I read ‘The Swerve’ a few years ago and I enjoyed reading it. It’s premise is that the discovery of “Lucretius” lost poem in some obscure monastery in Germany during the 15th century added a spark to ignite “The Renaissance” that followed as the poem by Lucretius was translated and copied -- introducing non-Christian thought (for the first time) and a way of thinking that was radical in nature and was written hundreds of years before Christianity. This was a revelation of a different kind that produced it’s own movements towards a greater freedom of expression.
"And at any rate we already know that quantum mechanics is not the fundamental theory in physics."
QM is not a theory at all, but more like a 'framework' for building theories. Likely whatever is the full theory is quantum mechanical and therefor will contain true randomness (Many worlds interpretation does not help; randomness is replaced by an infinity of random worlds. Amor Fati with a vengeance).
'Free will' does not make any sense even if there is true randomness. A decision (say to rob a bank) is not more free because it was triggered by a radioactive decay ('a swerve').
"(iv) The cosmos is not a living organism endowed with reason, and therefore Stoic-type Providence is out of the question. The Epicureans were right: we just need to endure life and do our best, there is no room for amor fati." Why is this point not also marked as "should be agnostic"? What conclusive evidence do we have to rule this option out? 🙂
Hello Massimo, will there be more of the mentioned or similar seminars in the future? Can anyone participate?
In my struggle to comprehend this argument and also to come to terms with the various factions promoting and defending their positions, I must admit that I don’t really know the scope and depth needed to arrive at some confidence regarding this conundrum. Just recently, I have taken to listening to podcasts by “Bernardo Kastrup” -- who has a view that debunks where “materialism” took root after the burning of “Giordano Bruno” at the stake by the Catholic Church. Apparently as Science was in it’s beginning stages, in order to survive it had to find a way to placate Church authorities while it pursued it’s own line of questions without interference. And materialism was a tactic to fend off the encroachment of Church dogma. As the centuries passed the reason why materialism was taken up as part of the equation to understand the universe was forgotten and as result was never seriously challenged for it’s errors of reasoning -- until now.
I read ‘The Swerve’ a few years ago and I enjoyed reading it. It’s premise is that the discovery of “Lucretius” lost poem in some obscure monastery in Germany during the 15th century added a spark to ignite “The Renaissance” that followed as the poem by Lucretius was translated and copied -- introducing non-Christian thought (for the first time) and a way of thinking that was radical in nature and was written hundreds of years before Christianity. This was a revelation of a different kind that produced it’s own movements towards a greater freedom of expression.
"And at any rate we already know that quantum mechanics is not the fundamental theory in physics."
QM is not a theory at all, but more like a 'framework' for building theories. Likely whatever is the full theory is quantum mechanical and therefor will contain true randomness (Many worlds interpretation does not help; randomness is replaced by an infinity of random worlds. Amor Fati with a vengeance).
'Free will' does not make any sense even if there is true randomness. A decision (say to rob a bank) is not more free because it was triggered by a radioactive decay ('a swerve').
To the degree that the cosmos is endowed with reason, it is our own reason residing within the cosmic chain of causes and effects