Very interesting reading, but I have a doubt about the evaluation of conspiracy theories.
I think it’s correct and useful to investigate them (I learned many interesting things about Apollo missions from debunking material of the moon hoax). But it’s also dangerous: bullshits are everywhere and evaluating even only a fraction of them requires time and intellectual energy. And we risk legitimate those bullshits in the public space.
Very interesting. I would like to add another eclectic argument:
Ultimately “tranquility of mind” and “truth and virtue” don’t contradict each other once you accept (as you seem to do) that there is no absolute truth. Thus you can suspend judgement about any “ultimate truth” (with tranquility) and still look for a better and pragmatic (truthful and virtuous) approximation or treatment of the matter in question.
Another excellent post. The more I learn about Cicero the more I like him. Any chance you’ll make your series of posts from Medium on the Political Philosophy of Cicero available on your Substack?
I like your approach to doubt here. Working out how to strike a balance between useful doubt and sheer desperation at the impossibility of absolutely certain knowledge is a tricky needle to thread. Your approach seems a sensible way forward.
I think it's a shame that Richard Feynman was always so scathing of philosophy because in practice he seemed to have such a sensible philosophical approach (at least to scientific questions). He maintained that the best answer he could give to a great many questions was "I don't know", but he certainly didn't mean that we should live in a state of unknowingness. We do know things, with varying levels of confidence (or probability, depending on how you think probability works for facts of reality!).
Massimo, what do you think of Hegel's dialectics?
(To be clear, I'm not an academic philosopher, just an interested engineer.)
Very interesting reading, but I have a doubt about the evaluation of conspiracy theories.
I think it’s correct and useful to investigate them (I learned many interesting things about Apollo missions from debunking material of the moon hoax). But it’s also dangerous: bullshits are everywhere and evaluating even only a fraction of them requires time and intellectual energy. And we risk legitimate those bullshits in the public space.
Very interesting. I would like to add another eclectic argument:
Ultimately “tranquility of mind” and “truth and virtue” don’t contradict each other once you accept (as you seem to do) that there is no absolute truth. Thus you can suspend judgement about any “ultimate truth” (with tranquility) and still look for a better and pragmatic (truthful and virtuous) approximation or treatment of the matter in question.
That’s even better news. I’ll be in line on its release day to get my copy!
Another excellent post. The more I learn about Cicero the more I like him. Any chance you’ll make your series of posts from Medium on the Political Philosophy of Cicero available on your Substack?
I like your approach to doubt here. Working out how to strike a balance between useful doubt and sheer desperation at the impossibility of absolutely certain knowledge is a tricky needle to thread. Your approach seems a sensible way forward.
I think it's a shame that Richard Feynman was always so scathing of philosophy because in practice he seemed to have such a sensible philosophical approach (at least to scientific questions). He maintained that the best answer he could give to a great many questions was "I don't know", but he certainly didn't mean that we should live in a state of unknowingness. We do know things, with varying levels of confidence (or probability, depending on how you think probability works for facts of reality!).
Massimo, what do you think of Hegel's dialectics?
(To be clear, I'm not an academic philosopher, just an interested engineer.)
It seems to me that Cicero was a precursor of bayesian epistemology.
Hopefully I can adopt it. One is always striving to be a better person. I find your articles very useful.