1- Things are by nature transitory; nothing stands still. Seneca in his Letters says “Nothing, whether public or private, is stable”, I think in his letter regarding the fire in Lyon
2- If this is the case, then our attitude towards events shouldn’t be etched by strong feelings, because this would imply certitude towards what happens
3- With this attitude, our lives should be without strong feelings, but rather that of an observer to events
How do things appear to us and how are things by nature seem to me like different questions. I think science is part of how things appear to us and its measurements and results are in a sense evident.
On how are things are by nature I'm unsure. I'm wondering about things like what do we mean by nature and the question as a whole, what kind of answer are we looking for or can we expect, and if science can help us answer how can it do so.
When I observe, nature is set in a way as to promote renewal and innovation through consumption of already established organics.
The idea for proper attitude in this, nothing is permanent for our senses besides the reality of death, for which we innovate to avoid or mitigate the realization.
Perhaps the end for having this attitude - use and exploration of fuller and experience of nature - is being more part of the experience as a renewal and creator rather then a consumer, and so to be more complete as nature intended.
The key, IMNHO, is to stay as mindful as we can of the need to be tentative, accept everything provisionally, remember that nearly everything is more complex than we're likely to grasp, and the like. But NOT, therefore, to give up on even provisional understanding, as such will improve our chances of happiness and living reasonable lives.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Massimo Pigliucci
As someone with a scientific bent who considers Philosophical Taoism as best expressing my underlying attitude to reality, I would summarize my viewpoint as follows:
1. The Tao is not fully capable of being completely understood in human terms ("The Tao that is written is not the Tao") which is a form of epistemological mysticism.
2. We create theories to explain reality because that is our nature. It is how we function in the world. We tend to see things as binary true/false dualities, for example. There is nothing wrong with that. For the most part it works, as long as we don't get overly attached to our theories. In any case where theory and reality differ, reality always trumps theory.
3. When effecting change in the world, be observant of what gives the biggest bang for the buck. Put another way, if crossing a river, don't fight the current. Or as Reinhold Neibuhr once said "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can change; and wisdom to know the difference." Speaking as a Pantheist, where the Universe (Tao) is my God, I find that Neibuhr's injunction to be the best course of action.
A bit of skepticism allows us to respect other people's ideas, avoiding extremism. However, an absolute absence of opinion is incompatible with our desire to participate in life's events.
So, the solution is a stoic participation, knowing that our perception is imperfect.
Your modernization is a very good start. Part of the message from current science is that our species has been so successful in utilizing our brains, teamwork, developed technologies, and non-somatic energy, that after millennia of slow population growth we increased 800% in a mere two centuries. Having quadrupled in the lifespan of living individuals, this has been termed Plague Phase by some ecologists. On our finite, and increasingly toxified sphere, this has led to major habitat damage and loss of many species. We depend upon many of those still extant such as pollinators, soil bacteria, diverse sea life, etc. Climate is but one symptom of our massive 'success' in overstepping a healthful balance with the planet.
Our attitude has been largely to ignore these facts, and to keep growing both numerically and p/capita consumption. I see two main drivers for this. One is the hubris of human exceptionalism which has been with us for many thousands of years. It is based on our predilection for supernatural powers (mysticism), and religions developed due to it. It abetted social cohesion, and was evolutionarily selected as it worked. The second driver is not unique to humans. It is the drive by living systems to optimize energy throughput to enable replication and niche expansion. See:
This was developed by scientists, and humans aren't exempt. We may be the only species to have rare exceptions, though, like those practicing voluntary simplicity. In the long run they might end up being the eventual survivors of habitat breakdown. I wonder, though, if that will be more luck of time and place, with the most remote tribes being best adapted to their habitat. They'll need luck to remain remote and somewhat insulated from the negative feedback of 'civilization.'
I wasn't sure exactly what was meant by the first question - was it ontological? Was it about how we view situations in our lives?
But my answers are as follows:
1. Things appear to us to be a certain way. To improve our perception of physical reality, we can carry out systematic observations. To improve our understanding of logic, etc., we can analyse what we mean by certain words or concepts and gain a clearer picture of relations between them.
2. We should hold our perceptions and understanding tentatively, since new information or a different perspective might overturn our current suppositions.
3. The outcome for people viewing things in this way will be that they will largely be unperturbed, if it becomes necessary to revise their position or perception of how things are.
I answer the three questions this way:
1- Things are by nature transitory; nothing stands still. Seneca in his Letters says “Nothing, whether public or private, is stable”, I think in his letter regarding the fire in Lyon
2- If this is the case, then our attitude towards events shouldn’t be etched by strong feelings, because this would imply certitude towards what happens
3- With this attitude, our lives should be without strong feelings, but rather that of an observer to events
My reflections to Timon’s questions:
1) See Pigliucci (i);
2) See Pigliucci (ii);
3) See Pigliucci (iii).
If clarification needed, kindly ask Timon to ask Aristocles to ask Eusebius to ask Pyrrho to rephrase the questions. 😊
Massimo,
(i) How are things by nature?
How do things appear to us and how are things by nature seem to me like different questions. I think science is part of how things appear to us and its measurements and results are in a sense evident.
On how are things are by nature I'm unsure. I'm wondering about things like what do we mean by nature and the question as a whole, what kind of answer are we looking for or can we expect, and if science can help us answer how can it do so.
When I observe, nature is set in a way as to promote renewal and innovation through consumption of already established organics.
The idea for proper attitude in this, nothing is permanent for our senses besides the reality of death, for which we innovate to avoid or mitigate the realization.
Perhaps the end for having this attitude - use and exploration of fuller and experience of nature - is being more part of the experience as a renewal and creator rather then a consumer, and so to be more complete as nature intended.
The key, IMNHO, is to stay as mindful as we can of the need to be tentative, accept everything provisionally, remember that nearly everything is more complex than we're likely to grasp, and the like. But NOT, therefore, to give up on even provisional understanding, as such will improve our chances of happiness and living reasonable lives.
Of course, don't stop. Go ahead. I love Greek Philosophy. It brings me back to my high school years.
As someone with a scientific bent who considers Philosophical Taoism as best expressing my underlying attitude to reality, I would summarize my viewpoint as follows:
1. The Tao is not fully capable of being completely understood in human terms ("The Tao that is written is not the Tao") which is a form of epistemological mysticism.
2. We create theories to explain reality because that is our nature. It is how we function in the world. We tend to see things as binary true/false dualities, for example. There is nothing wrong with that. For the most part it works, as long as we don't get overly attached to our theories. In any case where theory and reality differ, reality always trumps theory.
3. When effecting change in the world, be observant of what gives the biggest bang for the buck. Put another way, if crossing a river, don't fight the current. Or as Reinhold Neibuhr once said "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can change; and wisdom to know the difference." Speaking as a Pantheist, where the Universe (Tao) is my God, I find that Neibuhr's injunction to be the best course of action.
Massimo,
A bit of skepticism allows us to respect other people's ideas, avoiding extremism. However, an absolute absence of opinion is incompatible with our desire to participate in life's events.
So, the solution is a stoic participation, knowing that our perception is imperfect.
Massimo,
Your modernization is a very good start. Part of the message from current science is that our species has been so successful in utilizing our brains, teamwork, developed technologies, and non-somatic energy, that after millennia of slow population growth we increased 800% in a mere two centuries. Having quadrupled in the lifespan of living individuals, this has been termed Plague Phase by some ecologists. On our finite, and increasingly toxified sphere, this has led to major habitat damage and loss of many species. We depend upon many of those still extant such as pollinators, soil bacteria, diverse sea life, etc. Climate is but one symptom of our massive 'success' in overstepping a healthful balance with the planet.
Our attitude has been largely to ignore these facts, and to keep growing both numerically and p/capita consumption. I see two main drivers for this. One is the hubris of human exceptionalism which has been with us for many thousands of years. It is based on our predilection for supernatural powers (mysticism), and religions developed due to it. It abetted social cohesion, and was evolutionarily selected as it worked. The second driver is not unique to humans. It is the drive by living systems to optimize energy throughput to enable replication and niche expansion. See:
https://www.ecologycenter.us/ecosystem-theory/the-maximum-power-principle.html
This was developed by scientists, and humans aren't exempt. We may be the only species to have rare exceptions, though, like those practicing voluntary simplicity. In the long run they might end up being the eventual survivors of habitat breakdown. I wonder, though, if that will be more luck of time and place, with the most remote tribes being best adapted to their habitat. They'll need luck to remain remote and somewhat insulated from the negative feedback of 'civilization.'
I wasn't sure exactly what was meant by the first question - was it ontological? Was it about how we view situations in our lives?
But my answers are as follows:
1. Things appear to us to be a certain way. To improve our perception of physical reality, we can carry out systematic observations. To improve our understanding of logic, etc., we can analyse what we mean by certain words or concepts and gain a clearer picture of relations between them.
2. We should hold our perceptions and understanding tentatively, since new information or a different perspective might overturn our current suppositions.
3. The outcome for people viewing things in this way will be that they will largely be unperturbed, if it becomes necessary to revise their position or perception of how things are.