Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] A true dogma is a good

Expand Messages
  • Steve Marquis
    Richard-   I rather like the definition of dogma you have presented.  This is pretty close to what I envision when someone uses the word.  ‘A point of
    Message 1 of 30 , May 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      Richard-

       

      I rather like the definition of dogma you have presented.  This is pretty close to what I envision when someone uses the word.  A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds’ is especially on the mark.  Let’s test that against some of the recent uses in context.

       

      Dave’s thread title is a ‘true dogma is a good’.  Given the definition above I think this is contradictory.  If something is _known_ as true it cannot be authoritative without adequate grounds.  Something known as true _always_ has adequate grounds by definition (for the knower).  What this tells me is that dogma, however well entrenched and accepted it is, is _always opinion_.

       

      So I would like to shorten Dave’s title to: ‘What is true is good’.  Stoicism associates truth directly with the good.  Assenting to true impressions consistently is what arête is.

       

      Now I was quite taken aback when someone associated the fundamental axioms of Stoicism with a Stoic ‘dogma’.  Why?  Because dogma in my mind is ‘authoritative without adequate grounds’.  The most obvious example is church doctrine based on an _authoritative_ Biblical interpretation.  Stoicism is a historical philosophy with the basis of its claims in 1) scholarship and 2) reason.  Like any other philosophy the claims here are possibly refutable by reason.  The adequate grounds are reason.  So, while we may not have enough shareable where with all to call Stoic axioms the absolute truth we do have adequate grounds for claiming well grounded opinion.

       

      The above stands apart I think from our attachment to our beliefs which we all have more or less.  I am a strong ‘believer’ in the opinion that attachment to our beliefs (the ego viewing its world view as necessary for survival) is where all the trouble starts.  But that is a completely different issue than establishing what the system of Stoicism consists of and being able to give good reason for (adequate grounds) why that is so.

       

      So for me dogma is 1) always opinion, 2) based on an appeal to authority rather than evidence, reason, or even the validity of one’s own intuition, and 3) is usually put forth as a canonized tenent of some institution.

       

      Live well,Steve

      --- On Mon, 5/20/13, Richard <pmsrxw@...> wrote:

      From: Richard <pmsrxw@...>
      Subject: Re: [stoics] A true dogma is a good
      To: "Stoics" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Monday, May 20, 2013, 8:42 AM


      Dogma -
      «Date: 1638
      1 a : something held as an established opinion ; especially : a definite authoritative b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2 : a or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church»

      To me "dogma" means "doctrine"

      The problem I have with absolute dogma is that I believe humans are fallible.  Thus humans are not capable of formulating an absolute truth.

      OTOH "God" or any Omniscient Being CAN formulate dogma due to Their Infallibility.

      Psychologically speaking, dogmatic thinking tends to obscure reason and rational thinking.   Some emotional flexibility tends to the mind to a wider range of options and observations.

      Albert Ellis embraced Alfred Korzybski's "e-prime" in order to reduce talking in dogmatic
      absolutes.

      When people rigidly embrace "dogma" their perception tends to become skewed - like the proverbial fellow with a hammer who sees the world as "nails" to be hit.


      Regards, Richard
      -----------------------
      God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.

      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
          stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    • Richard
      ‘What is true is good’. » Yes that DOES seem so! And AFAICT Stoicism indeed has Axioms that are well-founded. More later. The word dogma as used might
      Message 2 of 30 , May 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ‘What is true is good’. »

        Yes that DOES seem so!

        And AFAICT Stoicism indeed has Axioms that are well-founded.

        More later.

        The word "dogma" as used might have been a proverbial "red-herring"....
        Regards, Richard
        -----------------------
        God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.
      • Dave
        ... � ... But, why can t an opinion be true. dogma (n.) c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma philosophical tenet, from Greek dogma (genitive
        Message 3 of 30 , May 20, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
           
          > Dave’s thread title is a ‘true dogma is a good’.  Given the definition above I think this is contradictory.  If something is _known_ as true it cannot be authoritative without adequate grounds.  Something known as true _always_ has adequate grounds by definition (for the knower).  What this tells me is that dogma, however well entrenched and accepted it is, is _always opinion_.

          But, why can't an opinion be true.

          dogma (n.)
          c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma "philosophical tenet," from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," literally "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.

          >  
          > So I would like to shorten Dave’s title to: ‘What is true is good’.  Stoicism associates truth directly with the good.  Assenting to true impressions consistently is what arête is.

          If an opinion (_dogma_) like "Happiness is found exclusively in Virtue (_arete_)" is believed to be true, and is in fact true, why isn't it a good.

          Best wishes,
          Dave
        • Richard
          If an opinion (_dogma_) like Happiness is found exclusively in Virtue (_arete_) is believed to be true, and is in fact true, why isn t it a good. Best
          Message 4 of 30 , May 20, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            If an opinion (_dogma_) like "Happiness is found exclusively in Virtue (_arete_)" is believed to be true, and is in fact true, why isn't it a good.

            Best wishes,
            Dave»

            Regards, Richard
            -----------------------
            God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.

            From: "Dave" <ptypes@...>
            Sender: stoics@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 21:56:09 -0000
            To: <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
            ReplyTo: stoics@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good

             



            --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
             
            > Dave’s thread title is a ‘true dogma is a good’.  Given the definition above I think this is contradictory.  If something is _known_ as true it cannot be authoritative without adequate grounds.  Something known as true _always_ has adequate grounds by definition (for the knower).  What this tells me is that dogma, however well entrenched and accepted it is, is _always opinion_.

            But, why can't an opinion be true.

            dogma (n.)
            c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma "philosophical tenet," from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," literally "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.

            >  
            > So I would like to shorten Dave’s title to: ‘What is true is good’.  Stoicism associates truth directly with the good.  Assenting to true impressions consistently is what arête is.

            If an opinion (_dogma_) like "Happiness is found exclusively in Virtue (_arete_)" is believed to be true, and is in fact true, why isn't it a good.

            Best wishes,
            Dave

          • Steve Marquis
            Hi Dave-   What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true
            Message 5 of 30 , May 20, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              Hi Dave-

               

              What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same thing.

               

              The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy).

               

              As we have discussed before I am wary of putting too much emphasis on the strength of belief.  I believe the trap of attachment to wrong beliefs is much more likely than a possible benefit gained from firm adherence to a stumbled upon belief that happens to be objectively true as well.  Our hypothetical agent about which we are talking who has this opinion cannot know it is an opinion about something objectively true by definition or it wouldn’t be an opinion – it would be knowledge.  Truth and opinion to me are mutually exclusive.  If it does not warrant the label episteme no matter how well supported our nose is till under water.  I think my position is supported by Socrates’ quest to always find someone who can show him he is wrong.

               

              In this I side with the modern empiricist.  The way to truth, even a dogmatic certain truth as the Stoics held was possible, is through moderate skepticism.  Otherwise we will get bogged down in our own dogma and loose the open mindedness necessary for progress.  It is the nature of the ego to maintain its own beliefs as true because truth is at its most basic necessary for survival (ie, getting out of the way of _real_ large moving objects for example).  We have a natural aversion to accepting that what we think is true might be wrong.  That would mean our chances of survival are less.  That fear needs to be overcome to make progress.

               

              Dogmatism usually has a negative connotation.  I know you are using the word in another way here.  And I am not saying that is incorrect in that context.  But I think being dogmatic for most people is seen as someone who has an unjustified opinion and is determined to maintain it despite any and all evidence or argument to the contrary.  Dogma in that since is certainly to be avoided.  This is why I don’t see stating what the Stoic axioms are as dogma.  If I _knew_ they were true that could be dogmatic to me in the positive since but that certainty cannot be transmitted by logical demonstration alone.  If it could have been it would have been.  That certainty can only come about subjectively via our own intuition if it can at all.

               

              I think our basic position on Stoicism is the same – that the Stoics equated continual consistent assent to the truth as good.

               

              Live well,Steve

              --- On Mon, 5/20/13, Dave <ptypes@...> wrote:

              From: Dave <ptypes@...>
              Subject: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
              To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, May 20, 2013, 2:56 PM



              --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
               
              > Dave’s thread title is a ‘true dogma is a good’.  Given the definition above I think this is contradictory.  If something is _known_ as true it cannot be authoritative without adequate grounds.  Something known as true _always_ has adequate grounds by definition (for the knower).  What this tells me is that dogma, however well entrenched and accepted it is, is _always opinion_.

              But, why can't an opinion be true.

              dogma (n.)
              c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma "philosophical tenet," from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," literally "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.

              >  
              > So I would like to shorten Dave’s title to: ‘What is true is good’.  Stoicism associates truth directly with the good.  Assenting to true impressions consistently is what arête is.

              If an opinion (_dogma_) like "Happiness is found exclusively in Virtue (_arete_)" is believed to be true, and is in fact true, why isn't it a good.

              Best wishes,
              Dave



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

              <*> Your email settings:
                  Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
                  (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                  stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
                  stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

            • Dave Kelly
              ... So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this
              Message 6 of 30 , May 21, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Hi Dave-
                >
                >
                >
                > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies
                > one knows it is true. An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of
                > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same
                > thing.
                >
                >
                >
                > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true
                > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist). The Stoics are very strict about what they let in
                > as the good. An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation
                > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know
                > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves
                > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy).

                So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true
                to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good.

                Just trying this out.

                Best wishes,
                Dave
              • Steve Marquis
                I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense
                Message 7 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.

                   

                  Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.

                   

                  Live well,

                  Steve
                   
                  --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                  From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                  On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hi Dave-
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies
                  > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of
                  > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same
                  > thing.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true
                  > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in
                  > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation
                  > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know
                  > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves
                  > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy).

                  So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true
                  to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good.

                  Just trying this out.

                  Best wishes,
                  Dave


                  ------------------------------------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

                  <*> Your email settings:
                      Individual Email | Traditional

                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                  <*> To change settings via email:
                      stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
                      stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                • Dave
                  ... David Sedley says it s knowing the right things that matters: Despite the Stoics extensive cataloguing and classification of the kathekonta which the
                  Message 8 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                    >  
                    > Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.

                    David Sedley says it's knowing the right things that matters:

                    "Despite the Stoics' extensive cataloguing and classification of the kathekonta which the sage will perform, ultimately the wise are characterized, not by the actual success of their actions - which may not always be in their control - but by the morally perfect frame of mind with which they act - in other words, by virtue. Socrates had propounded that paradox that virtue is knowledge: all there is to being good is to know the right things. The Stoics develop this Socratic idea to the full. The word for knowledge - episteme - can also more specifically mean 'science', and they regard each virtue as a genuine science, complete with its own constituent theorems. The skill of living in harmony is a skill analogous to, although vastly more difficult than, any branch of mathematics or medicine."

                    So, wouldn't knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods?

                    Best wishes,
                    Dave
                  • Steve Marquis
                    Dave-   Since you have taken belief and opinion out (even charaterized by the qualifier true ) and are using knowing with cetainty instead I have to
                    Message 9 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dave-
                       
                      Since you have taken belief and opinion out (even charaterized by the qualifier 'true') and are using 'knowing with cetainty' instead I have to agree.  This would be a dogma that is good.
                       
                      Live well,
                      Steve

                      --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave <ptypes@...> wrote:

                      From: Dave <ptypes@...>
                      Subject: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                      To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 2:08 PM



                      --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                      >  
                      > Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.

                      David Sedley says it's knowing the right things that matters:

                      "Despite the Stoics' extensive cataloguing and classification of the kathekonta which the sage will perform, ultimately the wise are characterized, not by the actual success of their actions - which may not always be in their control - but by the morally perfect frame of mind with which they act - in other words, by virtue. Socrates had propounded that paradox that virtue is knowledge: all there is to being good is to know the right things. The Stoics develop this Socratic idea to the full. The word for knowledge - episteme - can also more specifically mean 'science', and they regard each virtue as a genuine science, complete with its own constituent theorems. The skill of living in harmony is a skill analogous to, although vastly more difficult than, any branch of mathematics or medicine."

                      So, wouldn't knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods?

                      Best wishes,
                      Dave



                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

                      <*> Your email settings:
                          Individual Email | Traditional

                      <*> To change settings online go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
                          (Yahoo! ID required)

                      <*> To change settings via email:
                          stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
                          stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                    • Richard
                      So, wouldn t knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods? Best
                      Message 10 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        So, wouldn't knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods?

                        Best wishes,
                        Dave»

                        Without being omniscient -
                        How do we know this is "exclusively" true without exception?

                        Regards, Richard
                        -----------------------
                        God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.
                      • Dave Kelly
                        ... We have access to moral knowledge through our moral intuition. Moral intuition is a perfectible capacity, and is theorized in ethical intuitionism to be
                        Message 11 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Richard <pmsrxw@...> wrote:
                          > So, wouldn't knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods?
                          >
                          > Best wishes,
                          > Dave»
                          >
                          > Without being omniscient -
                          > How do we know this is "exclusively" true without exception?

                          We have access to moral knowledge through our moral intuition. Moral
                          intuition is a perfectible capacity, and is theorized in "ethical
                          intuitionism" to be the basis of our reasoning. I hope I haven't
                          botched this explanation too much, because Grant wrote a book on the
                          theory.

                          The ancient Stoics may account for this ability with the idea of
                          "preconceptions."

                          > Regards, Richard
                          > -----------------------
                          > God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.

                          Best wishes,
                          Dave

                          --
                          It's not events that trouble us, but our judgments about events.
                          The universe is change; life is judgment.
                        • Kevin
                          Steve,   you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing
                          Message 12 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Steve,
                             
                            you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                             
                            I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                             
                            Regards
                            Kevin

                            From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                             
                            I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                             
                            Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                             
                            Live well,
                            Steve
                             
                            --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                            From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                            On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • Steve Marquis
                            Richard-   If we want keep the possibility of certain knowledge we have nowhere to go but our intuition.  I happen to agree with Dave and Grant on this. 
                            Message 13 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Richard-

                               

                              If we want keep the possibility of certain knowledge we have nowhere to go but our intuition.  I happen to agree with Dave and Grant on this.  Reason cannot get you there (nor evidence for that matter) because any logical system must start with axioms accepted as self evidently true.  The classic example is Euclidian geometry.  The starting axioms are stipulated and the rest of the system is built from those.

                               

                              So there are really two choices-

                               

                              Accept intuition as an available source of knowledge (in addition to reason and evidence) or don’t.  If you don’t we are left with the watered down version of knowledge as justified true belief (which begs the question as to how any belief is known to be true).  I don’t accept this and would rather keep the stricter ancient episteme that includes certainty as necessary.

                               

                              The certainty that may be possible with intuition is not transferable to another person.  And therein lays the problem.  The only way to justify a case to someone else is on non-intuitive grounds via reason or evidence.  What the dogma of some institutions attempt is to enforce someone's intuition on others on no other grounds than some authority says so.  And I don’t think that’s right.  That is a dogma we should not only question but reject (IMO).

                               

                              I wanted to steer away from ‘if you believe it and its true it’s a good belief’.  Why?  A belief in something is certainly a necessary condition for it to be knowledge.  But a belief in something is _not sufficient_ for it to be knowledge.  We all tend to accept our own beliefs as true.  And I think self honesty and caution is in order.  This is even doubly so if we really believe intuition is a source of truth.  For there is no recourse to anything once you take that step.

                               

                              Accepting intuition as a possible source of knowledge keeps alive the Stoic belief that certain knowledge is possible.  Practically we can operate very much in a forever revisionary loop like a modern empiricist does always seeking to improve our knowledge by keeping a moderate skepticism going without giving up the possibility that certainty is possible.  I don’t think these two positions are mutually exclusive.  And I think buying in to either one too strongly gets us out of the golden mean and into trouble.  If we accept our current belief set as the _TRUTH_ that will stop that Socratic inquiry and the possibly of progress.  We will persecute others of course for they are wrong and we are right.  If however we don’t believe there is a truth obtainable at all we can slip into a deep relativism where anything goes and nothing is right or wrong.  So I think there are very good reasons to keep both the possibility of certain knowledge alive and enough skepticism going to make progress towards that goal.

                               

                              Live well,

                              Steve

                              --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Richard <pmsrxw@...> wrote:

                              From: Richard <pmsrxw@...>
                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                              To: "Stoics" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                              Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 4:42 PM

                              So, wouldn't knowing with certainty that, for example, happiness is found exclusively in virtue and that externals are neither good nor evil be goods?

                              Best wishes,
                              Dave»

                              Without being omniscient -
                              How do we know this is "exclusively" true without exception? 

                              Regards, Richard
                              -----------------------
                              God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.

                              ------------------------------------

                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/

                              <*> Your email settings:
                                  Individual Email | Traditional

                              <*> To change settings online go to:
                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join
                                  (Yahoo! ID required)

                              <*> To change settings via email:
                                  stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com
                                  stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                  stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                            • Steve Marquis
                              Kevin-   See my reply to Richard.   Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry
                              Message 14 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Kevin-
                                 
                                See my reply to Richard.
                                 
                                Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me).

                                --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM



                                Steve,
                                 
                                you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                 
                                I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                 
                                Regards
                                Kevin

                                From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                 
                                I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                 
                                Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                 
                                Live well,
                                Steve
                                 
                                --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                              • Richard
                                Dave Kelly: «We have access to moral knowledge through our moral intuition. Moral intuition is a perfectible capacity, and is theorized in ethical
                                Message 15 of 30 , May 21, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dave Kelly:

                                  «We have access to moral knowledge through our moral intuition. Moral
                                  intuition is a perfectible capacity, and is theorized in "ethical intuitionism" »

                                  And so now how do we know that THAT is absolutely so?
                                  Regards, Richard
                                  -----------------------
                                  God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.
                                • TheophileEscargot
                                  I think we need to bear in mind that the ancient stoics thought that empirical data can be a source of moral knowledge. See for instance Chrysippus statement
                                  Message 16 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I think we need to bear in mind that the ancient stoics thought that empirical data can be a source of moral knowledge.

                                    See for instance Chrysippus' statement cited in Diogenes Laertius Life of Zeno LIII:

                                    "Living virtuously is equal to living in accordance with one's experience of the actual course of nature."

                                    Seneca's Letter CXX:

                                    "Kindly deeds, humane deeds, brave deeds, had at times amazed us; so we began to admire them as if they were perfect. Underneath, however, there were many faults, hidden by the appearance and the brilliancy of certain conspicuous acts; to these we shut our eyes. Nature bids us amplify praiseworthy things - everyone exalts renown beyond the truth. And thus from such deeds we deduced the conception of some great good."

                                    Now, the stoics thought that some moral knowledge is absolutely certain. But I think the implication of the above quotes is that some moral knowledge is uncertain. If our "experience of the actual course of nature" is wrong somehow, our moral knowledge may also be wrong. Someone brought up by bad parents and teachers, or living in a corrupt society, may have incorrect moral ideas.

                                    I think the stoic idea of prolepsis/preconception is a much weaker form of moral intuitionism than that of Kant. Kant thinks (IIRC) that our built-in intuitions about virtue are enough to make us good. The stoics seem to have thought of our built-in intuition more as something that works in conjunction with our empirical knowledge so that we can judge things correctly.



                                    --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <pmsrxw@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Dave Kelly:
                                    >
                                    > «We have access to moral knowledge through our moral intuition. Moral
                                    > intuition is a perfectible capacity, and is theorized in "ethical intuitionism" »
                                    >
                                    > And so now how do we know that THAT is absolutely so?
                                    > Regards, Richard
                                    > -----------------------
                                    > God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.
                                    >
                                  • Richard
                                    Can t we tolerate and accept a modicum of ambiguity or uncertainty? So, why not simply say - 1. The Stoic system works pragmatically based upon certain
                                    Message 17 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Can't we tolerate and accept a modicum of ambiguity or uncertainty? So, why not simply say -

                                      1. The Stoic system works pragmatically based upon certain axioms...

                                      2 Absent those axioms, the system is not effective to lead the good life...

                                      So instead of Dogma, we have an integrated, system based upon Harmony with certain principles and who cares if we can prove it? We just know experientially and over time that Stoic practice tends to produce Eudaimonia.
                                      Regards, Richard
                                      -----------------------
                                      God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature.
                                    • Kevin
                                      Steve: “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”   Me: I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm
                                      Message 18 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Steve:
                                        “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                         
                                        Me:
                                        I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                         
                                        So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                         
                                        Regards
                                        Kevin


                                        From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                         
                                        Kevin-
                                         
                                        See my reply to Richard.
                                         
                                        Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                        From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                        Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                        To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                        Steve,
                                         
                                        you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                         
                                        I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                         
                                        Regards
                                        Kevin
                                        From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                         
                                        I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                         
                                        Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                         
                                        Live well,
                                        Steve
                                         
                                        --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                        From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                        Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                        To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                        Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                        On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      • Steve Marquis
                                        Hi Kevin-   Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.   We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make
                                        Message 19 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment

                                          Hi Kevin-

                                           

                                          Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.

                                           

                                          We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).

                                           

                                          Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!

                                           

                                          I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.

                                           

                                          So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.

                                           

                                          Live well,Steve

                                          --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                          From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                          To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM



                                          Steve:
                                          “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                           
                                          Me:
                                          I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                           
                                          So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                           
                                          Regards
                                          Kevin


                                          From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                          To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                           
                                          Kevin-
                                           
                                          See my reply to Richard.
                                           
                                          Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                          From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                          To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                          Steve,
                                           
                                          you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                           
                                          I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                           
                                          Regards
                                          Kevin
                                          From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                          To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                           
                                          I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                           
                                          Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                           
                                          Live well,
                                          Steve
                                           
                                          --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                          From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                          Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                          To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                          On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                        • Kevin
                                          Hi Steve,   While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn t really apply  because it isn t my or
                                          Message 20 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Steve,
                                             
                                            While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn't really apply
                                             because it isn't my or modern societies definition I  was discussing, but the definitions for a CI found in the Stoic materials.
                                             
                                            It is true I may not be able to understand the definitions like they did, because I am separated by a large span of time from them. And perhaps you can give me a better way of reading the sentences.
                                             
                                            What I am saying is that when I pick up LS and read all it has to say about a CI I am left understanding the term in two senses. Those two senses I gave below.
                                             
                                            Seriously, I know you have a LS, tell me where you arrive at your conclusions that the Stoics had a mixed sense of evidence and intuition regarding CI. I DO want to know.
                                             
                                            Now don't jump all over me about appeals to authority and all that. This is a Stoic board and the topic is Stoic epistemology not epistemology in general.:)
                                             
                                            Regards
                                            Kevin
                                             
                                             
                                            From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:23 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                             
                                            Hi Kevin-
                                             
                                            Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.
                                             
                                            We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).
                                             
                                            Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!
                                             
                                            I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.
                                             
                                            So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.
                                             
                                            Live well,Steve

                                            --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                            From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                            To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

                                            Steve:
                                            “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                             
                                            Me:
                                            I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                             
                                            So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                             
                                            Regards
                                            Kevin
                                            From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                             
                                            Kevin-
                                             
                                            See my reply to Richard.
                                             
                                            Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                            From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                            To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                            Steve,
                                             
                                            you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                             
                                            I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                             
                                            Regards
                                            Kevin
                                            From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                             
                                            I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                             
                                            Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                             
                                            Live well,
                                            Steve
                                             
                                            --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                            From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                            Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                            On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          • Steve Marquis
                                            Kevin-   Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?  So let’s see: A and B imply C but C is
                                            Message 21 of 30 , May 22, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment

                                              Kevin-

                                               

                                              Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?  So let’s see: A and B imply C but C is not to be found referenced in the texts that survive so we cannot presume C.

                                               

                                              That sort of extreme limitation I admit is necessary for scrupulous scholarship but that’s not going to work if we’re doing philosophy.

                                               

                                              Let’s follow your original point using this limitation.

                                               

                                              Kevin previously:

                                              _____________

                                               

                                              In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today.

                                              _____________

                                               

                                              The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up.  Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be?

                                               

                                              The second conclusion is that this is similar in some way to the same vacillation on the same subject today.  That of course has no scholarly evidence whatsoever.  You are voicing a comparison you’ve thought about.  My counter point is it is all too easy to project our own dilemmas back or across or whatever to other systems of thought other people have had at different times historically in different cultures.  They may or may not have run into the same roadblocks.  Again –due to a lack of specific scholarly evidence- we cannot assume they have.  In fact it’s better to assume they have not.  That means further study of this other system of thought may give us insight into our own roadblock.

                                               

                                              So if you want to limit me to only a specific reference to back up any point all of our discussion is going to become very limited very quickly and I think we will be much the worse for it.  I think you can see we can hardly avoid conclusions not specifically referenced.

                                               

                                              All I ask is that there be some attempt at reason giving, some, and I’m OK with it.

                                               

                                              We can find a reference for the fact that the Stoics held episteme to be possible.  They were known as dogmatists just because they thought certain knowledge was possible.  We can find also references for the fact they thought the senses were a reliable source of true data about reality.  What ties the two together is the cognitive impression.  Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely.  Given the strong competition form the other schools these sorts of questions would be well debated.  And given most of the same schools enfranchising of reason, the Stoics not the least of those, I can only believe this is not an overlooked trouble spot but rather it that had some defense to avoid an obvious inconsistency.

                                               

                                              What that was we don’t know.  The only possible way we can approach resolving such discrepancies is not to assume it’s a contradiction never worked on but to try and resolve it ourselves.

                                               

                                              I can dig out my L&S this weekend for the (2) points I’m sure can be referenced: episteme is possible and the validity of sensation.  I can also find a reference in L&S I’m pretty sure (am at work right now) that includes both of those (validity of sensation and certainty) tied to the CI or derived from the CI.  What I will not find is a specific reference to intuition separate from reason _because they didn’t make the distinction_.  From this point on I have to rely on _oh no_ reason.  What I would attempt is to show that, like Grant has claimed many times and evidently has quite an elaborate argument for, the only way to have certainty about any claimed fact is via intuition (like Dave I will put in a disclaimer- if I misspeak what Grant is up to he needs to correct me).  Given that and the fact that the Stoics certainly believed in certainty ;), we can say that the only way for that to hold is through intuition of some kind.  This doesn’t negate in any way Stoicisms tie to sensation either.  My entire point for going through the exercise is to show that the empiricist and the rationalist are not necessarily contradictory.  It is us who make it seem so.  But of course none of that is possible if we cannot make any logical arguments.

                                               

                                              No time for research until this weekend.

                                               

                                              So Kevin – how do you wish me to proceed?

                                               

                                              Live well,

                                              Steve

                                              --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                              From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                              To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 5:06 PM



                                              Hi Steve,
                                               
                                              While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn't really apply
                                               because it isn't my or modern societies definition I  was discussing, but the definitions for a CI found in the Stoic materials.
                                               
                                              It is true I may not be able to understand the definitions like they did, because I am separated by a large span of time from them. And perhaps you can give me a better way of reading the sentences.
                                               
                                              What I am saying is that when I pick up LS and read all it has to say about a CI I am left understanding the term in two senses. Those two senses I gave below.
                                               
                                              Seriously, I know you have a LS, tell me where you arrive at your conclusions that the Stoics had a mixed sense of evidence and intuition regarding CI. I DO want to know.
                                               
                                              Now don't jump all over me about appeals to authority and all that. This is a Stoic board and the topic is Stoic epistemology not epistemology in general.:)
                                               
                                              Regards
                                              Kevin
                                               
                                               
                                              From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                              To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:23 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                               
                                              Hi Kevin-
                                               
                                              Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.
                                               
                                              We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).
                                               
                                              Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!
                                               
                                              I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.
                                               
                                              So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.
                                               
                                              Live well,Steve

                                              --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                              From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                              To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

                                              Steve:
                                              “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                               
                                              Me:
                                              I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                               
                                              So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                               
                                              Regards
                                              Kevin
                                              From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                              To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                               
                                              Kevin-
                                               
                                              See my reply to Richard.
                                               
                                              Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                              From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                              To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                              Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                              Steve,
                                               
                                              you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                               
                                              I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                               
                                              Regards
                                              Kevin
                                              From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                              To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                              Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                               
                                              I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                               
                                              Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                               
                                              Live well,
                                              Steve
                                               
                                              --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                              From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                              Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                              To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                              Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                              On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                            • TheophileEscargot
                                              I tend to agree with Steve here. I think the firm division between intuitive and empirical knowledge is a somewhat modern development in philosophy. Two
                                              Message 22 of 30 , May 23, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I tend to agree with Steve here.

                                                I think the firm division between intuitive and empirical knowledge is a somewhat modern development in philosophy. Two philosophers in particular developed it: René Descartes with his dualism and "I think therefore I am", and Immanuel Kant with his division between A Priori and A Posteriori knowledge. We can't assume that Hellenistic philosophers made such a strong distinction.


                                                --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Kevin-
                                                >  
                                                > Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?  So let’s see: A and B imply C but C is not to be found referenced in the texts that survive so we cannot presume C.
                                                >  
                                                > That sort of extreme limitation I admit is necessary for scrupulous scholarship but that’s not going to work if we’re doing philosophy.
                                                >  
                                                > Let’s follow your original point using this limitation.
                                                >  
                                                > Kevin previously:
                                                > _____________
                                                >  
                                                > In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today.
                                                > _____________
                                                >  
                                                > The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up.  Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be?
                                                >  
                                                > The second conclusion is that this is similar in some way to the same vacillation on the same subject today.  That of course has no scholarly evidence whatsoever.  You are voicing a comparison you’ve thought about.  My counter point is it is all too easy to project our own dilemmas back or across or whatever to other systems of thought other people have had at different times historically in different cultures.  They may or may not have run into the same roadblocks.  Again â€"due to a lack of specific scholarly evidence- we cannot assume they have.  In fact it’s better to assume they have not.  That means further study of this other system of thought may give us insight into our own roadblock.
                                                >  
                                                > So if you want to limit me to only a specific reference to back up any point all of our discussion is going to become very limited very quickly and I think we will be much the worse for it.  I think you can see we can hardly avoid conclusions not specifically referenced.
                                                >  
                                                > All I ask is that there be some attempt at reason giving, some, and I’m OK with it.
                                                >  
                                                > We can find a reference for the fact that the Stoics held episteme to be possible.  They were known as dogmatists just because they thought certain knowledge was possible.  We can find also references for the fact they thought the senses were a reliable source of true data about reality.  What ties the two together is the cognitive impression.  Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely.  Given the strong competition form the other schools these sorts of questions would be well debated.  And given most of the same schools enfranchising of reason, the Stoics not the least of those, I can only believe this is not an overlooked trouble spot but rather it that had some defense to avoid an obvious inconsistency.
                                                >  
                                                > What that was we don’t know.  The only possible way we can approach resolving such discrepancies is not to assume it’s a contradiction never worked on but to try and resolve it ourselves.
                                                >  
                                                > I can dig out my L&S this weekend for the (2) points I’m sure can be referenced: episteme is possible and the validity of sensation.  I can also find a reference in L&S I’m pretty sure (am at work right now) that includes both of those (validity of sensation and certainty) tied to the CI or derived from the CI.  What I will not find is a specific reference to intuition separate from reason _because they didn’t make the distinction_.  From this point on I have to rely on _oh no_ reason.  What I would attempt is to show that, like Grant has claimed many times and evidently has quite an elaborate argument for, the only way to have certainty about any claimed fact is via intuition (like Dave I will put in a disclaimer- if I misspeak what Grant is up to he needs to correct me).  Given that and the fact that the Stoics certainly believed in certainty ;), we can say that the only way for that to hold is through intuition of some kind.  This
                                                > doesn’t negate in any way Stoicisms tie to sensation either.  My entire point for going through the exercise is to show that the empiricist and the rationalist are not necessarily contradictory.  It is us who make it seem so.  But of course none of that is possible if we cannot make any logical arguments.
                                                >  
                                                > No time for research until this weekend.
                                                >  
                                                > So Kevin â€" how do you wish me to proceed?
                                                >  
                                                > Live well,
                                                > Steve
                                                > --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                > To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                > Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 5:06 PM
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Hi Steve,
                                                >  
                                                > While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn't really apply
                                                >  because it isn't my or modern societies definition I  was discussing, but the definitions for a CI found in the Stoic materials.
                                                >  
                                                > It is true I may not be able to understand the definitions like they did, because I am separated by a large span of time from them. And perhaps you can give me a better way of reading the sentences.
                                                >  
                                                > What I am saying is that when I pick up LS and read all it has to say about a CI I am left understanding the term in two senses. Those two senses I gave below.
                                                >  
                                                > Seriously, I know you have a LS, tell me where you arrive at your conclusions that the Stoics had a mixed sense of evidence and intuition regarding CI. I DO want to know.
                                                >  
                                                > Now don't jump all over me about appeals to authority and all that. This is a Stoic board and the topic is Stoic epistemology not epistemology in general.:)
                                                >  
                                                > Regards
                                                > Kevin
                                                >  
                                                >  
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:23 PM
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >  
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Hi Kevin-
                                                >  
                                                > Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.
                                                >  
                                                > We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).
                                                >  
                                                > Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!
                                                >  
                                                > I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.
                                                >  
                                                > So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.
                                                >  
                                                > Live well,Steve
                                                >
                                                > --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                > To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                > Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Steve:
                                                > “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                                >  
                                                > Me:
                                                > I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                                >  
                                                > So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my
                                                > opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                                >  
                                                > Regards
                                                > Kevin
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >  
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Kevin-
                                                >  
                                                > See my reply to Richard.
                                                >  
                                                > Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                > To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                > Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Steve,
                                                >  
                                                > you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                                >  
                                                > I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                                >  
                                                > Regards
                                                > Kevin
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >  
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                                >  
                                                > Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                                >  
                                                > Live well,
                                                > Steve
                                                >  
                                                > --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                                > Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                > To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                > Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that
                                                >
                                              • Kevin
                                                OK, I ll answer Steve s questions  then proceed a little bit. Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly
                                                Message 23 of 30 , May 23, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  OK, I'll answer Steve's questions  then proceed a little bit.

                                                  "Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?"  Of course I accept reason to make a point  and if a dispute arises about what the Stoics actually did think then should use some evidence for the claim.  


                                                  "The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up. Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be? "

                                                   I think "vacillation" was a bad word choice . A better way to present my conclusion would have been to say was that in the texts it seemed to me there were two camps among the ancient Stoics. Lets call one an "intuitive camp" and the other "hard evidence camp". Of course I invite to tell me if you read the texts differently (Long & Sedley The Hellenistic philosophers volume 1 sections 39, 40, 41 seem to me to talk directly to this point). I would would actually enjoy a discussion on this topic and it does not have to be onerous. Of course if you don't want to that's fine. For the other folks if you don't have a copy of this it is worth having if you want to learn Stoicism.


                                                  "Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely. " As I said vacillation was a poor choice however I went back and read through the texts above including the commentaries last night., and I think you are right. There was no two camps, my memory was flawed. There was no "intuitive camp" that I can see or the commentator saw. It wasn't a position exactly like empiricism today  they thought some impressions exactly represented the object and these kind of impressions.. Today empiricists would not think that impressions would exactly represent their object. But Stoics were certainly  hard-line Realists. Or so it seems to me.

                                                  So Kevin – how do you wish me to proceed? I think we have proceeded quite nicely. I will add that of course epistemology in general is a huge subject, which I find fascinating. I try to read on the subject when I have a chance from the Stoics to the more modern versions and I think it is difficult not to read later theories into what the the Stoics  thought. Or perhaps we may want to fill in what we might think of  as a gap or in Stoic thought. Or perhaps we have our own ideas we want to discuss which is fine. I maintain however it is appropriate on a Stoic list to occasional say "hey just for the record I don't think the Stoics thought that and here is why." By doing that I have benefited because I actually went back and read what they said and I'm  better off for it.

                                                  Regards
                                                  Kevin

                                                  From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:02 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good

                                                   

                                                  Kevin-
                                                   
                                                  Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?  So let’s see: A and B imply C but C is not to be found referenced in the texts that survive so we cannot presume C.
                                                   
                                                  That sort of extreme limitation I admit is necessary for scrupulous scholarship but that’s not going to work if we’re doing philosophy.
                                                   
                                                  Let’s follow your original point using this limitation.
                                                   
                                                  Kevin previously:
                                                  _____________
                                                   
                                                  In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today.
                                                  _____________
                                                   
                                                  The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up.  Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be?
                                                   
                                                  The second conclusion is that this is similar in some way to the same vacillation on the same subject today.  That of course has no scholarly evidence whatsoever.  You are voicing a comparison you’ve thought about.  My counter point is it is all too easy to project our own dilemmas back or across or whatever to other systems of thought other people have had at different times historically in different cultures.  They may or may not have run into the same roadblocks.  Again –due to a lack of specific scholarly evidence- we cannot assume they have.  In fact it’s better to assume they have not.  That means further study of this other system of thought may give us insight into our own roadblock.
                                                   
                                                  So if you want to limit me to only a specific reference to back up any point all of our discussion is going to become very limited very quickly and I think we will be much the worse for it.  I think you can see we can hardly avoid conclusions not specifically referenced.
                                                   
                                                  All I ask is that there be some attempt at reason giving, some, and I’m OK with it.
                                                   
                                                  We can find a reference for the fact that the Stoics held episteme to be possible.  They were known as dogmatists just because they thought certain knowledge was possible.  We can find also references for the fact they thought the senses were a reliable source of true data about reality.  What ties the two together is the cognitive impression.  Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely.  Given the strong competition form the other schools these sorts of questions would be well debated.  And given most of the same schools enfranchising of reason, the Stoics not the least of those, I can only believe this is not an overlooked trouble spot but rather it that had some defense to avoid an obvious inconsistency.
                                                   
                                                  What that was we don’t know.  The only possible way we can approach resolving such discrepancies is not to assume it’s a contradiction never worked on but to try and resolve it ourselves.
                                                   
                                                  I can dig out my L&S this weekend for the (2) points I’m sure can be referenced: episteme is possible and the validity of sensation.  I can also find a reference in L&S I’m pretty sure (am at work right now) that includes both of those (validity of sensation and certainty) tied to the CI or derived from the CI.  What I will not find is a specific reference to intuition separate from reason _because they didn’t make the distinction_.  From this point on I have to rely on _oh no_ reason.  What I would attempt is to show that, like Grant has claimed many times and evidently has quite an elaborate argument for, the only way to have certainty about any claimed fact is via intuition (like Dave I will put in a disclaimer- if I misspeak what Grant is up to he needs to correct me).  Given that and the fact that the Stoics certainly believed in certainty ;), we can say that the only way for that to hold is through intuition of some kind.  This doesn’t negate in any way Stoicisms tie to sensation either.  My entire point for going through the exercise is to show that the empiricist and the rationalist are not necessarily contradictory.  It is us who make it seem so.  But of course none of that is possible if we cannot make any logical arguments.
                                                   
                                                  No time for research until this weekend.
                                                   
                                                  So Kevin – how do you wish me to proceed?
                                                   
                                                  Live well,
                                                  Steve
                                                  --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                  To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 5:06 PM



                                                  Hi Steve,
                                                   
                                                  While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn't really apply
                                                   because it isn't my or modern societies definition I  was discussing, but the definitions for a CI found in the Stoic materials.
                                                   
                                                  It is true I may not be able to understand the definitions like they did, because I am separated by a large span of time from them. And perhaps you can give me a better way of reading the sentences.
                                                   
                                                  What I am saying is that when I pick up LS and read all it has to say about a CI I am left understanding the term in two senses. Those two senses I gave below.
                                                   
                                                  Seriously, I know you have a LS, tell me where you arrive at your conclusions that the Stoics had a mixed sense of evidence and intuition regarding CI. I DO want to know.
                                                   
                                                  Now don't jump all over me about appeals to authority and all that. This is a Stoic board and the topic is Stoic epistemology not epistemology in general.:)
                                                   
                                                  Regards
                                                  Kevin
                                                   
                                                   
                                                  From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:23 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                   
                                                  Hi Kevin-
                                                   
                                                  Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.
                                                   
                                                  We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).
                                                   
                                                  Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!
                                                   
                                                  I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.
                                                   
                                                  So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.
                                                   
                                                  Live well,Steve

                                                  --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                  To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

                                                  Steve:
                                                  “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                                   
                                                  Me:
                                                  I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                                   
                                                  So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                                   
                                                  Regards
                                                  Kevin
                                                  From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                   
                                                  Kevin-
                                                   
                                                  See my reply to Richard.
                                                   
                                                  Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                  To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                                  Steve,
                                                   
                                                  you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                                   
                                                  I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                                   
                                                  Regards
                                                  Kevin
                                                  From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                   
                                                  I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                                   
                                                  Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                                   
                                                  Live well,
                                                  Steve
                                                   
                                                  --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                                  From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                                  Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                  To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                                  On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




                                                • Steve Marquis
                                                  Kevin-   Appreciate your response.  Long & Sedley is my first and favorite source to resolve ‘what is Stoicism’ type of questions.  I probably learned
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , May 23, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment

                                                    Kevin-

                                                     

                                                    Appreciate your response.  Long & Sedley is my first and favorite source to resolve ‘what is Stoicism’ type of questions.  I probably learned more from this book than any other book on Stoicism by a modern scholar.  So I second your recommendation that anyone who doesn’t have it ought to get a copy.  It was recommended to me by both Jan and Keith decades? ago. This weekend I will go back and take a look at the pertinent sections, probably several will be those you just mentioned.  I do not expect to find any direct mention of intuition.

                                                     

                                                    We can go to the sources about what’s in the sources.  We can’t go to the sources about what isn’t there.  So if we find X in the sources we can say yes that is what the Stoics thought.  But we cannot say they did not think X because we cannot find it in the sources.  There is a name for this that escapes me at the moment.  Another example is trying to prove a negative like God does not exist.  So if we find both A & B in the sources and they contradict each other we cannot conclude on that basis alone that is an inconsistency in the system.  We may be missing material that shows how they are in fact consistent.  Any conclusion we make at that point is partially an assumption.  Has to be.  However the assumption that these two seemingly contradictory positions did in fact have some connection and some rational defense leads us to try and figure out how that was so.  And that seems more beneficial.

                                                     

                                                    Kevin writes:

                                                    ______________

                                                     

                                                    It wasn't a position exactly like empiricism today.  They thought some impressions exactly represented the object and these kind of impressions.. Today empiricists would not think that impressions could exactly represent their object. But Stoics were certainly hard-line Realists.

                                                    ______________

                                                     

                                                    I do maintain that Stoicism straddles what we now call empiricism and rationalism both.  Empirical certainty is an example.   Just look at who is on our list and the debates we have.  This to me is not a reason to battle over which camp Stoicism should belong to.  Rather it is an opportunity to see if a bridge can be made.

                                                     

                                                    A fertile area for this would be further work on the cognitive impression.  There is not much out there and I think one reason why is modern scholars for the most part just put no credence in certain knowledge of any stripe.  That is water under the bridge so to speak so the most that can be gained by studying the CI is kind of a satisfaction of a historical curiosity.

                                                     

                                                    OTOH if intuitionism has any kind of resurgence that may rekindle an interest in claims of certainty as at a least an integrated part of an internally consistent system like classical Stoicism [as a philosophy we assume it to be internally consistent or have the potential to be; it may not be].  Intuition is a nasty animal; nasty.  Some of it I wouldn’t touch with a 10’ pole.  It means so many things to so many people.  To take it seriously the first step is to get a handle on a good definition which I am quite sure Grant did in his book.  Yes, I found Grant’s book at Amazon.  Just a little expensive for me right now.  I think Theo mentioned some caution is in order in regards to intuition.  I can’t blame him for that.  I think a good approach is to postulate the minimum required to make the theory work.  This is good hypothesis building: the minimum explanation required for the anomaly.

                                                     

                                                    Personally I am an intuitionist.  To me it is the connection of our individual logos with the Logos.  It is at work in all of us.  Just some are more aware of it.  But that is a personal belief.  I am not going to find support for that belief directly in the surviving texts unless I’ve missed something big.  The way it has to be worked in is by logical necessity, and the minimum at that.  And the second part, the belief in the reliability of sensation, has to be maintained at the same time.  The point is to get the two together.  Neither one should push the other out.  That is how I perceive the ancients intended their theory of knowledge to work.

                                                     

                                                    Live well,

                                                    Steve

                                                     

                                                     

                                                     

                                                     

                                                    --- On Thu, 5/23/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                    From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                    Subject: Stoic Criterion for truth [Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                    To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Date: Thursday, May 23, 2013, 6:09 AM



                                                    OK, I'll answer Steve's questions  then proceed a little bit.

                                                    "Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?"  Of course I accept reason to make a point  and if a dispute arises about what the Stoics actually did think then should use some evidence for the claim.  


                                                    "The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up. Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be? "

                                                     I think "vacillation" was a bad word choice . A better way to present my conclusion would have been to say was that in the texts it seemed to me there were two camps among the ancient Stoics. Lets call one an "intuitive camp" and the other "hard evidence camp". Of course I invite to tell me if you read the texts differently (Long & Sedley The Hellenistic philosophers volume 1 sections 39, 40, 41 seem to me to talk directly to this point). I would would actually enjoy a discussion on this topic and it does not have to be onerous. Of course if you don't want to that's fine. For the other folks if you don't have a copy of this it is worth having if you want to learn Stoicism.


                                                    "Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely. " As I said vacillation was a poor choice however I went back and read through the texts above including the commentaries last night., and I think you are right. There was no two camps, my memory was flawed. There was no "intuitive camp" that I can see or the commentator saw. It wasn't a position exactly like empiricism today  they thought some impressions exactly represented the object and these kind of impressions.. Today empiricists would not think that impressions would exactly represent their object. But Stoics were certainly  hard-line Realists. Or so it seems to me.

                                                    So Kevin – how do you wish me to proceed? I think we have proceeded quite nicely. I will add that of course epistemology in general is a huge subject, which I find fascinating. I try to read on the subject when I have a chance from the Stoics to the more modern versions and I think it is difficult not to read later theories into what the the Stoics  thought. Or perhaps we may want to fill in what we might think of  as a gap or in Stoic thought. Or perhaps we have our own ideas we want to discuss which is fine. I maintain however it is appropriate on a Stoic list to occasional say "hey just for the record I don't think the Stoics thought that and here is why." By doing that I have benefited because I actually went back and read what they said and I'm  better off for it.

                                                    Regards
                                                    Kevin

                                                    From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                    To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:02 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good

                                                     

                                                    Kevin-
                                                     
                                                    Are you saying you will not accept logic or reason to make a point but only scholarly historical evidence?  So let’s see: A and B imply C but C is not to be found referenced in the texts that survive so we cannot presume C.
                                                     
                                                    That sort of extreme limitation I admit is necessary for scrupulous scholarship but that’s not going to work if we’re doing philosophy.
                                                     
                                                    Let’s follow your original point using this limitation.
                                                     
                                                    Kevin previously:
                                                    _____________
                                                     
                                                    In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today.
                                                    _____________
                                                     
                                                    The first conclusion of two is there is a vacillation, not just a hole in the scholarly evidence that ties the two together.  That conclusion it seems to me either is a) as valid as mine because it attempts a logical connection or b) as invalid as mine because it has no scholarly reference to back it up.  Fair is fair Kevin.  Which will it be?
                                                     
                                                    The second conclusion is that this is similar in some way to the same vacillation on the same subject today.  That of course has no scholarly evidence whatsoever.  You are voicing a comparison you’ve thought about.  My counter point is it is all too easy to project our own dilemmas back or across or whatever to other systems of thought other people have had at different times historically in different cultures.  They may or may not have run into the same roadblocks.  Again –due to a lack of specific scholarly evidence- we cannot assume they have.  In fact it’s better to assume they have not.  That means further study of this other system of thought may give us insight into our own roadblock.
                                                     
                                                    So if you want to limit me to only a specific reference to back up any point all of our discussion is going to become very limited very quickly and I think we will be much the worse for it.  I think you can see we can hardly avoid conclusions not specifically referenced.
                                                     
                                                    All I ask is that there be some attempt at reason giving, some, and I’m OK with it.
                                                     
                                                    We can find a reference for the fact that the Stoics held episteme to be possible.  They were known as dogmatists just because they thought certain knowledge was possible.  We can find also references for the fact they thought the senses were a reliable source of true data about reality.  What ties the two together is the cognitive impression.  Do you really think they would have two contradictory theories depending on which side of the fence they wanted to talk about at a given moment?  I think that would be unlikely.  Given the strong competition form the other schools these sorts of questions would be well debated.  And given most of the same schools enfranchising of reason, the Stoics not the least of those, I can only believe this is not an overlooked trouble spot but rather it that had some defense to avoid an obvious inconsistency.
                                                     
                                                    What that was we don’t know.  The only possible way we can approach resolving such discrepancies is not to assume it’s a contradiction never worked on but to try and resolve it ourselves.
                                                     
                                                    I can dig out my L&S this weekend for the (2) points I’m sure can be referenced: episteme is possible and the validity of sensation.  I can also find a reference in L&S I’m pretty sure (am at work right now) that includes both of those (validity of sensation and certainty) tied to the CI or derived from the CI.  What I will not find is a specific reference to intuition separate from reason _because they didn’t make the distinction_.  From this point on I have to rely on _oh no_ reason.  What I would attempt is to show that, like Grant has claimed many times and evidently has quite an elaborate argument for, the only way to have certainty about any claimed fact is via intuition (like Dave I will put in a disclaimer- if I misspeak what Grant is up to he needs to correct me).  Given that and the fact that the Stoics certainly believed in certainty ;), we can say that the only way for that to hold is through intuition of some kind.  This doesn’t negate in any way Stoicisms tie to sensation either.  My entire point for going through the exercise is to show that the empiricist and the rationalist are not necessarily contradictory.  It is us who make it seem so.  But of course none of that is possible if we cannot make any logical arguments.
                                                     
                                                    No time for research until this weekend.
                                                     
                                                    So Kevin – how do you wish me to proceed?
                                                     
                                                    Live well,
                                                    Steve
                                                    --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                    From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                    To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 5:06 PM



                                                    Hi Steve,
                                                     
                                                    While I do appreciate your point that about not only being two possible explanations your analogy doesn't really apply
                                                     because it isn't my or modern societies definition I  was discussing, but the definitions for a CI found in the Stoic materials.
                                                     
                                                    It is true I may not be able to understand the definitions like they did, because I am separated by a large span of time from them. And perhaps you can give me a better way of reading the sentences.
                                                     
                                                    What I am saying is that when I pick up LS and read all it has to say about a CI I am left understanding the term in two senses. Those two senses I gave below.
                                                     
                                                    Seriously, I know you have a LS, tell me where you arrive at your conclusions that the Stoics had a mixed sense of evidence and intuition regarding CI. I DO want to know.
                                                     
                                                    Now don't jump all over me about appeals to authority and all that. This is a Stoic board and the topic is Stoic epistemology not epistemology in general.:)
                                                     
                                                    Regards
                                                    Kevin
                                                     
                                                     
                                                    From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                    To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:23 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                     
                                                    Hi Kevin-
                                                     
                                                    Let me suggest a third option.  There is no vacillation.  It is both.
                                                     
                                                    We are always trying to put Stoicism into definitional boxes we make for it and act surprised when it doesn’t fit.  Remember the duck billed platypus?  When this quite innocent creature was first brought back to England the biologists of the day thought the specimens presented were parts of different animals sewn together in an elaborate fraud.  It was the classification scheme that needed to be preserved not reconciliation with new evidence (my point exactly about attachment to our beliefs).
                                                     
                                                    Stoicisms must fit into either the empiricist box or the rationalist box.  That’s our classification scheme.  It continues to refuse to fit wholly into either one and I must say it is quite hilarious.  The Stoics reject Plato distrust of the senses.  This is obvious.  But they insist on an episteme that is certain non-contingent knowledge.  Warning Will Robinson!  Warning!!
                                                     
                                                    I used to have so much trouble with the cognitive impression until I realized the Stoics never separated intuition from reason (coupled with sensation no less).  Something to stuff in our pipe and smoke a bit.
                                                     
                                                    So I think everything is just fine in Stoicville.  It’s just an innocent anomaly like the platypus.  Maybe it is us who need to do the adjusting.
                                                     
                                                    Live well,Steve

                                                    --- On Wed, 5/22/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                    From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                    To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Date: Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 11:13 AM

                                                    Steve:
                                                    “Belief is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge”
                                                     
                                                    Me:
                                                    I understand and this is Stoic. The Stoics believed you had to have firm assent to a “convincing impression” to have knowledge. This versus opinion, which could be assent to an impression that is not “convincing” or a weak assent to a convincing impression.
                                                     
                                                    So I think the definition that is truly being sought here is the definition of a “convincing impression”. Because the necessary role of individual assent is not in question. This kind of impression, phantasia katalêptikê, was indeed fundamental to Stoic epistemology. It was a concept, which is difficult to precisely pin down in the extant literature, at least for me in my own attempts to do so. In some places, the definition reads as a property found in the impression itself (something one may intuit perhaps). This is the kind of definition you seem to believe ( though we are mistakenly applying this definition to “knowledge” itself versus the necessary component of knowledge in question)…. In other places, the definition reads as a kind of impression which you have sense evidence to believe and all arguments to refute the premise fails. I can’t say for sure what the ancient Stoics believed the correct definition is for this term. In my opinion they probably vacillated between the two definitions I made above. Just as it does today J.
                                                     
                                                    Regards
                                                    Kevin
                                                    From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                    To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:41 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                     
                                                    Kevin-
                                                     
                                                    See my reply to Richard.
                                                     
                                                    Belif is a necessary, but not sufficent, condtion for knowlelge (implied in the word knowedge is  a non-revsioanry truth; at least for me). --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:

                                                    From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                    To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 6:19 PM

                                                    Steve,
                                                     
                                                    you seem to have made some kind of distinction between believing something is true, which is the same as assenting that something is true and knowing something is true. How can you know something that you don't first assent to it and continue to do so?
                                                     
                                                    I think your stipulating "knowledge" in an unusual way.
                                                     
                                                    Regards
                                                    Kevin
                                                    From: Steve Marquis <stevemarquis@...>
                                                    To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:30 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                     
                                                    I’m not even sure it’s beneficial to talk about ‘belief’ at this point.  Beliefs, like opinions, can change.  You were after dogma in a good sense (not since) as I recall.  Knowledge of a truth is like that.  I don’t see it being whimsical to even the smallest extent like beliefs and opinions.  I am drawing a distinction between _knowing_ and _believing_ just as I did between _knowledge_ and _opinion_.
                                                     
                                                    Believing something is true and knowing something is true is again two different things.  The trap is confusing the former for the later.
                                                     
                                                    Live well,
                                                    Steve
                                                     
                                                    --- On Tue, 5/21/13, Dave Kelly <ptypes@...> wrote:

                                                    From: Dave Kelly <ptypes@...>
                                                    Subject: Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good
                                                    To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
                                                    Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2013, 9:45 AM

                                                    On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Steve Marquis <http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stevemarquis@...> wrote: > > > > > Hi Dave- > > > > What I gather from the Stoics is assenting to a true proposition implies > one knows it is true.  An opinion I happen to hold and believe to be true of > course that _just happens_ to correspond to what is true is not the same > thing. > > > > The short answer to your question is because it is not _known_ to be true > (ie, Zeno’s closed fist).  The Stoics are very strict about what they let in > as the good.   An analogy in science would be to notice a correlation > between events but to not understand what we are seeing well enough to know > if there is any causation between the same events (not concerning ourselves > with the actuality of causation for purposes of the analogy). So, if it is possible to know that a certain core Stoic belief is true to that certainty, and I think it is, then that belief is a good. Just trying this out. Best wishes, Dave ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/ <*> Your email settings:     Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to:     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoics/join     (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-digest@yahoogroups.com     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:     http://us.mc1822.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=stoics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






                                                  • Grant Sterling
                                                    I just have a second... Another problem is that the Stoics clearly accept that some of our impressions have a value component-- I not only have the impression
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , May 24, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      I just have a second...

                                                      Another problem is that the Stoics clearly accept
                                                      that some of our impressions have a value component--
                                                      I not only have the impression that "my son has been
                                                      killed by the Gauls", but the impression "my son has
                                                      been killed by the Gauls and that's very bad". On
                                                      top of that, I must have access to the information
                                                      that allows me to recognize that the value portion
                                                      of this impression is _false_, or else the Stoic
                                                      project cannot get off the ground.
                                                      {I say "another problem", because explaining
                                                      the difference between kataleptic and ordinary
                                                      impressions is one problem with reconciling Stoic
                                                      epistemology to modern epistemology, as is the
                                                      difficulty of deciding whether the Stoics accepted
                                                      the theory that knowl. is justified true belief,
                                                      or whether they regarded knowledge as being in a
                                                      different category from belief as Plato did.}
                                                      There is no room in modern empiricism for
                                                      the notion of value impressions, unless values are
                                                      reducible to sensible properties. (A project which
                                                      is on-going in contemporary ethics, and which as
                                                      you know I think is a miserable failure.) Unless
                                                      it can be explained how I can literally _see_ the
                                                      goodness or badness of states of affairs in a way
                                                      consistent with Stoic thought, it is difficult to
                                                      put the Stoics in the empiricist camp (as that term
                                                      is used today). {And remember, you must not only
                                                      explain how I can have the value-impression, but
                                                      also from where I can learn that the value impression
                                                      in this case is false.}

                                                      In Haste,
                                                      Grant
                                                    • Kevin
                                                      Here are qualities of a Cognitive Impression (CI) and people * They represent what is and only what is. * Normal functioning human beings have the faculties
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , May 24, 2013
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Here are qualities of a Cognitive Impression (CI) and people
                                                        • They represent what is and only what is.
                                                        • Normal functioning human beings have the faculties necessary to receive them and assent to them. In fact they are usually assented to automatically.
                                                        • The CI is something which can be discerned from a another similar impression which was not a CI. Such as Stoics thought you can tell if you are dreaming about walking around in your underwear versus really doing so.
                                                        • CIs seem _to me _ to be somewhat contextual in the sense if the data is not sufficient from the impression to support the claim. They talk about someone rubbing their eyes to ensure they see clearly enough to make a judgment.
                                                        • A CI is something you can trust and believe in because it is true.
                                                        • All the references to CIs deal with sense impressions, something you physically sense.
                                                        The above and my other readings about epistemology, tell me Stoics where Realists. By which I mean they believed the world existed independently of what anyone did or did not think about it. Also they believed humans _normally_had infallible access to this information within the confines of their ability to sense it. When I say they were "die-hard realists" this is what I mean. I am too BTW, skeptic arguments, even though I can't prove their wrong seem silly to me. If not silly certainly "insincere" to quote Wittgenstein from On Certainty.
                                                         
                                                         
                                                        I think (from reading their stuff and what scholars have said) the Stoics thought of CIs as bricks of reality upon which our minds are built. From these bricks and Reason, after enough experience, our rational minds developed. Some of the first constructions are what they called "preconceptions."  These were general and they were about value. Notions like Good, Bad, Indifferent, Nobel and Depraved are formed in our minds. It seems a "pre-conception" happens before we are actually fully rational, and they are built from the bricks of the CI and configured by Reason itself. Because a CI is not prone to error and Reason is also perfect our "preconceptions" are true and they do not vary from one person to another. "Conceptions" are rational constructs which we make or are taught and accept. They are not necessarily built upon CIs or from preconceptions. Epictetus, I believe (from stuff he is supposed to have said), hinged his whole moral philosophy on the validity of preconceptions and moral progress was made by correctly applying them to particular situations.
                                                         
                                                        I would go on to "knowledge" and how what defined it was not the presence of CI and the assent to it but the _disposition_ of the person. The sage through his\her consistent disposition transformed the mere acceptance of a true fact, which anyone can do and we often do, to real "knowledge. But this post is already too long.
                                                         
                                                        I think the above really is accurate how the Stoics thought about the world including the world of value. I know enough epistemology from reading others that I cannot really tell you where the holes or the strengths of this position are. It seems a reasonable proposition to me, but I'm not sure it would if you believed that the necessary conditions to create a "preconception" do not exist. I think the existence of some moral constant(s) is an actual part of the universe is one of those necessary component(s). Else it seems to me the theory falls apart, because there is nor reason to believe that preconceptions shouldn't vary from person to person, because of different experiences. Even if you grant all the rest.
                                                         
                                                        Regards
                                                        Kevin

                                                         
                                                      • Steve Marquis
                                                        Part 1 The following is a response to Kevin mainly and the results from re-reading sections 39, 40, and 41 of Long and Sedley’s ‘the Hellenistic
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , May 27, 2013
                                                        • 0 Attachment

                                                          Part 1

                                                           

                                                          The following is a response to Kevin mainly and the results from re-reading sections 39, 40, and 41 of Long and Sedley’s ‘the Hellenistic philosophers’ Volume 1.  L&S is organized by school and topic.  These three chapters are in the Stoic section titled as ‘Impressions’, ‘The criteria of truth’, and ‘Knowledge and opinion’ respectively.  This may be a bit technical.  Why go through this trouble?  The Stoics were mainly interested in the ethical end of all of this anyway; how to live the good life.  But that is not conjured in a vacuum.  They wanted an objective basis for their ethics grounded in reality and based on rationality.  This is consistent with Greek rationality in general and not surprising at all.

                                                           

                                                          There were 21 different pertinent references I thought but I’m only going to type in one or two for each point.  Those that want to see these quotes in context can follow along in their own L&S.  And if you don’t have one find a way to get one!

                                                           

                                                          1.   1.1. The foundation for Stoic knowledge was in sensory objects.

                                                           

                                                          Those of us inclined to rationalism seem to forget this and Theo was perfectly correct to remind us.  This is not just a rejection of Plato’s distrust of the senses but a full endorsement of sensation as the avenue to truth.  L&S pg 252 & 240:

                                                           

                                                          “Sense-perception, however, is also the foundation of all our conceptions and cognitions, and all our conceptions are impressions.”

                                                           

                                                          “The general thrust of [references] is to affirm the _normal_ reliability of impressions, treating sensory ones as paradigmatic . . .

                                                           

                                                          . . . the Stoics probably took the majority of impressions to be cognitive and to comprise most basically impressions of simple sensory objects”

                                                           

                                                          2.    22. This foundation was extended to a limited number of non-sensory objects thought to also be objective by the idea of ‘corporeality’ (ie, bodies).

                                                           

                                                          Kevin labels this belief in objective reality independent of what an agent conceives it to be ‘Realism’.  I am not sure all of my ists and isms but I can accept this in reference to the individual agent.  I am not quite so sure that, from the perspective of the Logos with a capital ‘L’, the Whole, that we have an external reality to _that_ agent.  Nevertheless the Stoics want what is objectively real to be bodies.  But this extends beyond what is immediately perceptible.  The defining attribute of a ‘body’ is causation, not normal perceptibility.  This is not trivial as the most central and necessary concepts in Stoicism, such as arête, are non-sensory objects that are claimed to be objectively real nonetheless.  L&S pgs 240-241:

                                                           

                                                          “The former [corporeal items or bodies, SM] present no special problem for the Stoics, since they can be presumed to have a causal effect on the mind via their effect on the world; and the Stoics’ anxiety, whenever possible, to employ a corporealist account of awareness is shown by their claim that even the virtues are bodies and perceptible.”

                                                           

                                                          This is the first clear deviation from what may be naively assumed to be a straight forward proto-empiricist epistemology.  I also find it very interesting that these non-sensory impressions are perceptible.  By what I wonder?

                                                           

                                                          3.    33. The cognitive impression was thought to covey certainty about the object of perception.

                                                           

                                                          I want to be clear that this is certainty, the non-contingent kind, not something believed to be true for the moment and subject to revision later as more data comes in.  For the cognitive impression no more data ever needs to come in.  The cognitive impression was not about esoteric intellectual complex concepts for the most part but the commonly everyday simple sense perceptions that everyone has.  It was common in that it occurred frequently about simple perceptions.  It was common in that it was believed everyone had them with the exception of those whose rational faculty was impaired.  L&S pgs 256; 249; 250:

                                                           

                                                          “The cognitive state that results from assent to a cognitive impression is ‘cognition’.  Like the clenched fist, to which Zeno likened it, cognition is the ‘grasp’ of its object – the state of affairs whose truth is guaranteed by the cognitive impression.

                                                           

                                                          Throughout their history the Stoics did not budge from the thesis, first adumbrated by Zeno, that infallible knowledge of the world is possible, and that all normal human beings have a natural faculty to make secure discrimination between discoverable truths and falsehoods.

                                                           

                                                          . . . the Stoics, from Zeno onwards, maintained the converse theory [to Epicurus, SM], holding that there is a type of impression which gives its recipient an absolute guarantee that it represents the object with complete accuracy and clarity.  As the criterion of truth, the cognitive impression is nature’s gift.”

                                                           

                                                          The self-certifiability of cognitive impressions were claimed to be basic to nature’s plans for rational agents and that these agents have the faculty with which to recognize the CI.  Zeno added that only what is real can produce these type of impressions.  This all make sense when we consider that, according to the Stoics, a creature is endowed by nature with the faculties and abilities which will aid its survivability and functioning.  This is well supported by modern evolutionary theory.  Those creatures that are well informed as to their actual environment and can respond to it will survive more often than those who are not.

                                                           

                                                          This idea (self-evident truth)  is quite embedded in our own thinking despite recent advances in epistemology notwithstanding:

                                                           

                                                          “We hold these truths to be self evident, that . . . “

                                                           

                                                          Non-contingent truths are a hallmark of the rationalist approach to things as opposed to the [modern] empirical approach.  So I’ll close today’s post with the obvious comment:  We have clear adherence in ancient Stoic theory about how we know what we know to both empiricism and rationalism.

                                                           

                                                          More to follow.

                                                           

                                                          Live well,

                                                          Steve



                                                          From: Kevin <kevin11_c@...>
                                                          To: "stoics@yahoogroups.com" <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
                                                          Sent: Fri, May 24, 2013 9:32:06 PM
                                                          Subject: Re: Stoic Criterion for truth [Re: [stoics] Re: A true dogma is a good



                                                          Here are qualities of a Cognitive Impression (CI) and people
                                                          • They represent what is and only what is.
                                                          • Normal functioning human beings have the faculties necessary to receive them and assent to them. In fact they are usually assented to automatically.
                                                          • The CI is something which can be discerned from a another similar impression which was not a CI. Such as Stoics thought you can tell if you are dreaming about walking around in your underwear versus really doing so.
                                                          • CIs seem _to me _ to be somewhat contextual in the sense if the data is not sufficient from the impression to support the claim. They talk about someone rubbing their eyes to ensure they see clearly enough to make a judgment.
                                                          • A CI is something you can trust and believe in because it is true.
                                                          • All the references to CIs deal with sense impressions, something you physically sense.
                                                          The above and my other readings about epistemology, tell me Stoics where Realists. By which I mean they believed the world existed independently of what anyone did or did not think about it. Also they believed humans _normally_had infallible access to this information within the confines of their ability to sense it. When I say they were "die-hard realists" this is what I mean. I am too BTW, skeptic arguments, even though I can't prove their wrong seem silly to me. If not silly certainly "insincere" to quote Wittgenstein from On Certainty.
                                                           
                                                           
                                                          I think (from reading their stuff and what scholars have said) the Stoics thought of CIs as bricks of reality upon which our minds are built. From these bricks and Reason, after enough experience, our rational minds developed. Some of the first constructions are what they called "preconceptions."  These were general and they were about value. Notions like Good, Bad, Indifferent, Nobel and Depraved are formed in our minds. It seems a "pre-conception" happens before we are actually fully rational, and they are built from the bricks of the CI and configured by Reason itself. Because a CI is not prone to error and Reason is also perfect our "preconceptions" are true and they do not vary from one person to another. "Conceptions" are rational constructs which we make or are taught and accept. They are not necessarily built upon CIs or from preconceptions. Epictetus, I believe (from stuff he is supposed to have said), hinged his whole moral philosophy on the validity of preconceptions and moral progress was made by correctly applying them to particular situations.
                                                           
                                                          I would go on to "knowledge" and how what defined it was not the presence of CI and the assent to it but the _disposition_ of the person. The sage through his\her consistent disposition transformed the mere acceptance of a true fact, which anyone can do and we often do, to real "knowledge. But this post is already too long.
                                                           
                                                          I think the above really is accurate how the Stoics thought about the world including the world of value. I know enough epistemology from reading others that I cannot really tell you where the holes or the strengths of this position are. It seems a reasonable proposition to me, but I'm not sure it would if you believed that the necessary conditions to create a "preconception" do not exist. I think the existence of some moral constant(s) is an actual part of the universe is one of those necessary component(s). Else it seems to me the theory falls apart, because there is nor reason to believe that preconceptions shouldn't vary from person to person, because of different experiences. Even if you grant all the rest.
                                                           
                                                          Regards
                                                          Kevin

                                                           


                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.