Very excited to have a Podcast from you to look forward to again. Your stoic meditations was part of my regular morning routine while preparing for work.
True I may think gold is beautiful and you may not. However, I may not deny that gold is nonreactive [noble] and be correct. And such incorrect thoughts are, in practice, very harmful.
Of course you wouldn't deny a real property of gold. But that's not a judgment, it's a statement of fact. We could still disagree about whether that property is or is not useful. Because that's a judgment.
I believe it is axiomatic that in ANY intellectual inquiry, rigor is essentiall. There is NO case where 'a thorough examination' IS NOT required and I believe that to claim the contrary IS intellectually dishonest and an open road to error.
That accusation is wholly unwarranted, and frankly quite disturbing. This is a discussion forum. You are welcome to disagree with my arguments and to reply with your own arguments. You are not at liberty to accuse me or anyone else of intellectual dishonesty.
I notice that you do not include ;noble; among your list of human judgements about gold which are not ;facts about gold. How can you say that on the one hand 'bviously such judgments are rooted in the objective characteristics of gold" and on the other that 'they are not made necessary by such characteristics'? This seems to me a contradiction, I would say that the human attribution of ;nobility' to gold is necessitated by its physical characteristic of nonreactivity as would be ;impressiveness; and 'usefulness'. What is meant by 'we can change the way we think about facts'?
Dorothy, human judgments are *about* facts in the world, so obviously the two are connected. But they are not logically necessitated by such facts. You may think gold is beautiful, I may not.
As for changing how we think about facts, that's the basis of both Epictetus's philosophy and modern cognitive therapy. Example: "I lost my job. It's a catastrophe!" As opposed to: "I lost my job. Excellent opportunity to change direction."
Dima, thanks for the kind words. I'll see what I can do about the volume. The podcast is available on Apple and Spotify. I've tried submitting it to Google, but there seems to be a glitch on Substack's part. I'll look into it!
It is true 'that facts about the world are independent of human judgement' however, if you are going to choose gold to make that point, it seems to me that you should describe gold as completely as possible and certainly make reference to its singular lack of reactivity,
The terms I used 'inertness' and nobility' are 'quasi-subjective' hawever they arise from the atomic structure of gold in which every position in which an electron could exist is filleed. Perhaps I should have written 'Atoms of gold have no valence. This is a strictly physical characteristic. The result is that Gold does not rust or even take on a patina. In the experience of humans for most of their history this was an impressive and quality That Massimo chose to ignore this physical quality of non-reactivity when discussing gold in this context troubles me.
Dorothy, I’m not sure why you are so troubled. Yes, humans found gold “impressive,” and “useful,” and of course “beautiful.” None of these are facts about gold. They are human judgments about gold. Obviously such judgments are rooted in the objective characteristics of gold. But they are not made necessary by such characteristics. Which is Epictetus’s point: we cannot change facts, but we can change the way we think about facts.
On the other hand NOT mentioning that gold doesn't oxidize hides a very important propety of that metal which differentiates it from all other common metals and which certainly contributes to its being valued by human beings. Hardly an honest method of argument.
Dear: The physical qualities of gold exist objectively (at least in the world we live in for factual and non-logical reasons). So objectively gold has the "positive" qualities you mentioned. The human body is made of some of the elements present in the rest of the world and develops the capacity to interact with it (through senses and reason) and to judge it. This interaction leads to the concept of beauty, and the positive sense of this concept probably has to do with the objective qualities of gold. And probably many -but not all- of our ethical and aesthetical concepts or rules have also to do with our physical nature in relation to the physical nature of the world. So regarding gold inertness and nobility are objective qualities, and beauty is a quality read by the observer (although this judgment may be related to the objective qualities that gold itself has).
But this doesn't explain why we do differ in our judgments of some events and objects. To understand these differences we may study thoroughly the physiology involved in our judgments, but using a logic taken from the functioning of our nature and bodies, and not the unattached logic (independent of all conditioning) we use to solve mathematical problems.
Ana, as you say in your second comment, people’s judgments differ, while the facts about the world don’t. That is because human judgments are not the same as facts. Of course we make judgments because we have a naturally evolved machinery (the brain) that allows us to do them. And of course these judgments are not independent of the facts about the world. But the two categories remain nevertheless logically distinct. This isn’t just an academic point. For Epictetus to appreciate this distinction saves us a lot of unnecessary trouble and heartache.
Dorothy, I’m not sure why you are accusing me of dishonesty. My argument was simply that facts about the world are independent of human judgment. It doesn’t matter why gold is valued by human beings. Whatever the reasons, they are still entirely logically distinct from facts.
Very excited to have a Podcast from you to look forward to again. Your stoic meditations was part of my regular morning routine while preparing for work.
Bill, glad to hear it!
Such important thought provocation, always but especially in our current world of cultural confusion and conflict. Thank you 🙏🏼
True I may think gold is beautiful and you may not. However, I may not deny that gold is nonreactive [noble] and be correct. And such incorrect thoughts are, in practice, very harmful.
Of course you wouldn't deny a real property of gold. But that's not a judgment, it's a statement of fact. We could still disagree about whether that property is or is not useful. Because that's a judgment.
I believe it is axiomatic that in ANY intellectual inquiry, rigor is essentiall. There is NO case where 'a thorough examination' IS NOT required and I believe that to claim the contrary IS intellectually dishonest and an open road to error.
Dorothy, I think you are way out of line, but I'll drop the matter here.
That is why I accuse you of dishonesty.
That accusation is wholly unwarranted, and frankly quite disturbing. This is a discussion forum. You are welcome to disagree with my arguments and to reply with your own arguments. You are not at liberty to accuse me or anyone else of intellectual dishonesty.
I notice that you do not include ;noble; among your list of human judgements about gold which are not ;facts about gold. How can you say that on the one hand 'bviously such judgments are rooted in the objective characteristics of gold" and on the other that 'they are not made necessary by such characteristics'? This seems to me a contradiction, I would say that the human attribution of ;nobility' to gold is necessitated by its physical characteristic of nonreactivity as would be ;impressiveness; and 'usefulness'. What is meant by 'we can change the way we think about facts'?
Dorothy, human judgments are *about* facts in the world, so obviously the two are connected. But they are not logically necessitated by such facts. You may think gold is beautiful, I may not.
As for changing how we think about facts, that's the basis of both Epictetus's philosophy and modern cognitive therapy. Example: "I lost my job. It's a catastrophe!" As opposed to: "I lost my job. Excellent opportunity to change direction."
Thank you for the chapter, very insightful.
The podcust plan sounds fascinating, looking forward to next episods.
Technical requests:
1. If possible to increase the volume of the recording.
2. Is the podcast available on other platforms? Personally I'm using Google Podcasts.
Dima, I just adjusted the audio as much as I can with the software I'm using. Give it another try.
Thank you for the effort! It's hard to say, I want to say it's a little better, I was able to hear in my car but with some effort.
Dima, thanks for the kind words. I'll see what I can do about the volume. The podcast is available on Apple and Spotify. I've tried submitting it to Google, but there seems to be a glitch on Substack's part. I'll look into it!
Exceptional 1st podcast!
Thank you, appreciated!
It is true 'that facts about the world are independent of human judgement' however, if you are going to choose gold to make that point, it seems to me that you should describe gold as completely as possible and certainly make reference to its singular lack of reactivity,
Dorothy, no, I simply don’t think that a thorough description is needed here, for the reasons I have already explained.
The terms I used 'inertness' and nobility' are 'quasi-subjective' hawever they arise from the atomic structure of gold in which every position in which an electron could exist is filleed. Perhaps I should have written 'Atoms of gold have no valence. This is a strictly physical characteristic. The result is that Gold does not rust or even take on a patina. In the experience of humans for most of their history this was an impressive and quality That Massimo chose to ignore this physical quality of non-reactivity when discussing gold in this context troubles me.
Dorothy, I’m not sure why you are so troubled. Yes, humans found gold “impressive,” and “useful,” and of course “beautiful.” None of these are facts about gold. They are human judgments about gold. Obviously such judgments are rooted in the objective characteristics of gold. But they are not made necessary by such characteristics. Which is Epictetus’s point: we cannot change facts, but we can change the way we think about facts.
I missed that intro jingle! :D
Glad you like it…
It’s great to hear someone speak on logic. Grazie!
Why when relating the characteristics of gold did you not mention its 'inertness' or 'nobility'?
No particular reason. I only needed a few examples, not an exhaustive list.
On the other hand NOT mentioning that gold doesn't oxidize hides a very important propety of that metal which differentiates it from all other common metals and which certainly contributes to its being valued by human beings. Hardly an honest method of argument.
Dear: The physical qualities of gold exist objectively (at least in the world we live in for factual and non-logical reasons). So objectively gold has the "positive" qualities you mentioned. The human body is made of some of the elements present in the rest of the world and develops the capacity to interact with it (through senses and reason) and to judge it. This interaction leads to the concept of beauty, and the positive sense of this concept probably has to do with the objective qualities of gold. And probably many -but not all- of our ethical and aesthetical concepts or rules have also to do with our physical nature in relation to the physical nature of the world. So regarding gold inertness and nobility are objective qualities, and beauty is a quality read by the observer (although this judgment may be related to the objective qualities that gold itself has).
But this doesn't explain why we do differ in our judgments of some events and objects. To understand these differences we may study thoroughly the physiology involved in our judgments, but using a logic taken from the functioning of our nature and bodies, and not the unattached logic (independent of all conditioning) we use to solve mathematical problems.
Ana, as you say in your second comment, people’s judgments differ, while the facts about the world don’t. That is because human judgments are not the same as facts. Of course we make judgments because we have a naturally evolved machinery (the brain) that allows us to do them. And of course these judgments are not independent of the facts about the world. But the two categories remain nevertheless logically distinct. This isn’t just an academic point. For Epictetus to appreciate this distinction saves us a lot of unnecessary trouble and heartache.
Dorothy, I’m not sure why you are accusing me of dishonesty. My argument was simply that facts about the world are independent of human judgment. It doesn’t matter why gold is valued by human beings. Whatever the reasons, they are still entirely logically distinct from facts.
My perpetual calendar is marked to start each week with wisdom and coffee. Thank you. :)
Appreciated!
Can't wait to hear more episodes :) thank you!
Yes indeed, thank you.