On one occasion, a very loud host on Fox News asked a theological expert, "This latest scientific research is tampering with the will of God. What does the bible have to say about this?"
The theological expert responded in a rising volume, "The liberal left don't want to hear this, but they are clearly risking damnation and the fires of hell for our world by ignoring the sacred words of God handed down to us from the prophets. Now that is a global warming I think we ought to really be afraid of."
A secular atheist had been offered up to the show as a punching bag for the audience. Rather than face the non-sequiters of his attackers, he asked a simple question. "If your orthodox policies led to everlasting heaven for your followers, but their lack of inclusive, cooperative progress led to the extinction of the species and the loss of untold billions of future beings, would god be happy with that?"
The theological expert replied with great certainty, "God works in mysterious ways and we must serve him no matter what the price is as the cost for entry into his kingdom of love."
The secular atheist told him, "Then go and do likewise with your flock."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus of Nazareth (7-2 BCE - 30-36 CE) is the central figure of Christianity and regarded as an important prophet of God in Islam. Most Christian denominations venerate him as God the Son incarnated. Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating a future apocalypse. Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse.

Survives
Parable of the Good Samaritan. No matter the nationality, help those who need it.
Parable of the Sower. Environments do need to be considered when teaching.
Parable of the Mustard Seed. Sometimes the tiniest idea can blossom into a large movement.
Parable of the Leaven. A single element can affect the rest of an entire group.
Parable of the Talents. Effort should be rewarded. Slothfulness should be punished.

Needs to Adapt
Parable of the Friend at Night. Asking for help is ok. Free riders must be thrown off.
Parable of the Strong Man. Since justice is a public good, government must own force.
Parable of the Barren Fig Tree. Repetition is necessary. Sometimes for more than four years.
Parables of Counting of the Cost. Planning is good, but trial and error is sometimes necessary.
Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Forgiveness is good. Be prepared to play tit for tat.
Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Aid to the poor is good. Rooting for hell is fruitless.
Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. Humility over boasting, but speak up sometimes.
Parable of the Wedding Feast. More humility over boasting, but don’t be trampled.
Parable of the Faithful Servant. Great ability requires great effort, but waiting for god is a waste.
Parable of the Ten Virgins. Preparedness for life is a virtue, but not for a visit from a god.
Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Charity is its own reward, not an avoidance of hell.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. It is good to focus on our own improvement. Others must be judged in a cooperative society though, and they must be judged according to the standards of what will help life survive in the long term.

Gone Extinct
Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into a heaven from which he will return. These supernatural elements of the myth of Christ were all similarly attributed to various other pagan gods in Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Sumerian, and Persian history. They stem from the need to justify the divine right of kings to rule over their people, but they have never been substantiated. No supernatural elements ever have.

Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer in his Sermon on the Mount: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who have sinned against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. There is no god. There is no heaven. Our daily bread must come from effort, not from divine provenance. Blind forgiveness does not equate with the tit for tat strategy - the most successful strategy for creating a cooperative society. And temptation will occur - we must experience it to master it.

The eight beatitudes during the Sermon on the Mount are stated as, Blessed are: the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Consolation for the lower class, but no humans should live in poor spirit. Especially since no afterlife is awaiting them.); they that mourn: for they shall be comforted (Emotions of sadness over loss are natural teachers to avoid loss. Wallowing in mourning is a waste of the life that remains.); the meek: for they shall inherit the earth (More consolation for the exploited class. We must be bold with our lives to be happy at the end of it because there is nothing else.); they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled (Righteousness - adhering to moral principles - would be a worthy goal if the principles were better aimed towards life instead of life after death.); the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (If everyone is adhering to the tit for tat strategy, this is true, but we must be prepared to punish cheaters or the system will be undermined.); the pure in heart: for they shall see God (No they won’t, for there is no god.); the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God (I thought everyone was a child of god. Regardless, peacemakers do play an important function in society.); they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Use of a falsehood for the creation of martyrs with unshakeable beliefs. As we know, this can be dangerous. Better to advocate logical argument because truth will always win in the end.). The four woes that follow these are stated as, Woe unto you: that are rich! for ye have received your consolation (More consolation for the exploited class. Wealth to a certain level enables freedom and happiness. Beyond that, it is not to be avoided, just used wisely.); that are full now! for ye shall hunger (Consolation for the hungry, when in fact satiety gives us energy required to make long-term decisions.); that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep (Play is required to learn, to reduce stress, to promote cooperation, to reenergize, etc. It should not be stigmatized.); when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets. (Good lives should be celebrated by all. Who is the real false prophet?) The beatitudes turn out to be rather ugly when their relationship to the survival of the species is closely examined.

Parable of the Growing Seed. Fruit does not just come after no labor. Every day must be filled.
Parable of the Two Debtors. Forgiveness of greater sins is not greater. Follow tit for tat.
Parable of the Rich Fool. We must work and save as if we will live forever. Then we are happy.
Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders. Straw men do not make a bad argument stronger.
Parable of the Weeds. Ideas are not like grasses. Bad ones can be rooted out right away.
Parable of the New Wine into Old Wineskins. Knowledge is accumulative. It rarely replaces.
Parable of the Pearl. Life requires adaptability and robustness, not monoculture fragility.
Parable of the Hidden Treasure. Same theme as the pearl. Same problem of fragility.
Parable of Drawing in the Net. There will be no final judgment day. We must not wait for it.
Parable of the Lost Sheep. Marketing ploy to capture the fallen, knowing we all fall sometime.
Parable of the Lost Coin. Same brand strategy as the sheep. Tells us nothing about life.
Parable of the Prodigal Son. Vile version of the commercial. Actively rewards wantonness.
Parable of the Unjust Steward. Awful justification of theft from the rich for personal safety.
Parable of the Master and the Servant. Recruiting the good by making them feel bad.
Parable of the Unjust Judge. There is no one to pray to. Repetition is only more wasteful.
Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Recruitment ploy creates moral hazard and injustice.
Parable of the Two Sons. Praising sinners for accepting a religion aimed at capturing them.
Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. A cult leader inciting violence against the ruling class.
Parable of the Great Banquet. Mass invitation, expelling one to make the remainder feel special.
Parable of the Budding Fig Tree. Pointing out that change will happen NOW. 2,000 years ago.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men. No one should be cast out and trodden asunder. Humans are not salt - they can regain their savor for life when they understand what life truly means.

Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel instead of on the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. This is merely requesting advertising for a product that doesn’t exist.

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Sadly, this is not true for the billions who have taken comfort in his easy answers and false promises of later rewards. His teachings prey on the weak spot of mankind and would lead to its death and destruction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This marks the end of my review of Ancient Philosophy. With the rise of Christianity and the fall of Rome, the word of thought next plunged into a period of Medieval Philosophy for the next 1,000 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medieval philosophies were mostly concerned with proving the existence of God. The medieval worldview was rational, ordered, and synthetic. It survived until the acids of war, plague, poverty, and social discord began to eat away its underlying presupposition – that the world rested on the being of God. This is probably what kept medieval times known as the Dark Ages – a reliance on God to explain things instead of science. Thus holding humanity back for a thousand years of stagnation and condemning millions to lives of suffering in the name of mysticism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bear with me as I examine the most famous thinkers from these dark times to make sure something important does not get lost in the cracks of history. Fortunately, the bright beam of enlightenment begins to shine at the end of this tunnel, so let's walk happily toward that light.

The Lady of the North laying back at Northumberlandia and staring forever into the deep blue sky, appearing for all the world to have achieved an "imperturbable state of mind" — a modern example of what a skeptic initially stood for.

This week, I'm wrapping up my tour of the philosophies of Ancient Greece with a look at the type of unfortunate reaction that often arises against quests for knowledge. In this section of my Evolutionary Philosophy, I started my examination of the Survival of the Fittest Philosophers by looking at the Pre-Socratics, before continuing through the triumvirate of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and then taking a tour of the schools of Epicureanism and Stoicism. Finally now, we turn to the school of thought that arose to cast doubt on all of these important foundations of philosophy--Skepticism.

And no man knows distinctly anything, And no man ever will.

Who knows but that this life is really death, and whether death is not what men call life?

The mountains, too, at a distance appear airy masses and smooth, but seen near at hand, they are rough. If appearances are deceitful, then they do not deserve any confidence when they assert what appears to them to be true.

These are quotes from the founder of skepticism, Pyrrho of Elis, who badly mistook the ideas of doubt, uncertainty, and probability, and used them to deny "any confidence" in what appears to be true. As described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, philosophical skepticism: 

"attempts to render doubtful every member of a class of propositions that we think (we can evaluate). The grounds for either withholding assent to the claim that we can have (a particular piece of) knowledge or denying that we can have (that particular piece of) knowledge are such that there is no possible way to either answer them...because the same doubt applies to each and every member of the (argument). Thus, philosophic doubt or philosophical skepticism, as opposed to ordinary incredulity, does not, in principle, come to an end. Or so the philosophic skeptic will claim!"

In plain language, the philosophical skeptic will claim that neither can we say, "this is an apple," nor "we cannot know if this is an apple" because we cannot know if we know anything or do not know anything. Clearly, this is a nonsense stance that gets us nowhere, and it has been suitably skewered through the ages by more clear-headed thinkers.

I do not think it possible to get anywhere if we start from skepticism. We must start from a broad acceptance of whatever seems to be knowledge and is not rejected for some specific reason. --Bertrand Russell

A doubt without an end is not even a doubt. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

This reminds me of a quote from E.O. Wilson's Consilience about postmodernists. Those schools may be 2,300 years apart, but to me the sentiment applies here since the Ancient Greeks invented modern philosophy and it therefore makes some sense to consider the skeptics the first postmodernists. Here is Wilson's quote:

"There have always been two kinds of original thinkers, those who upon viewing disorder try to create order, and those who upon encountering order try to protest it by creating disorder.  The tension between the two is what drives learning forward.  It lifts us upward through a zigzagging trajectory of progress.  And in the Darwinian contest of ideas, order always wins, because - simply - that is the way the real world works.  Nevertheless, here is a salute to the postmodernists.  They say to the rest of us: Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. Their ideas are like sparks from fireworks explosions that travel away in all directions, devoid of any following energy, soon to wink out in the dimensionless dark.  Yet a few will endure long enough to cast light on unexpected subjects.  That is one reason to think well of postmodernism, even as it menaces rational thought.  Another is the relief it affords those who have chosen not to encumber themselves with a scientific education.  Another is the small industry it has created within philosophy and literary studies.  Still another, the one that counts the most, is the unyielding critique of traditional scholarship it provides.  We will always need postmodernists or their rebellious equivalents.  For what better way to strengthen organized knowledge than continually to defend it from hostile forces?"

Indeed. Let's strengthen our knowledge by quickly examining this ancient school of philosophy in light of what we know today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Skepticism (3rd Century BCE) originated in ancient Greek philosophy with Pyrrho of Elis who traveled and studied as far as India and propounded the adoption of practical skepticism. The idea of this school of philosophy was to produce in the student a state of aversion to arbitrary arguments filled with inconsequential babble. Its search for happiness also continued the practicality of Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Survives

Needs to Adapt
Stoicism and Epicureanism made the search for pure truth subordinate to the attainment of practical virtue and happiness. Skepticism denied that pure truth was even possible to discover. It disputed the possibility of attaining truth by sensory apprehension, reason, or the two combined. In a large and changing universe, pure truths may indeed be impossible to know, however practical virtues and happiness will come from the search for them. Sense and reason are adequate for this search because the universe is natural and rational. We are a product of this universe so we can surely know it.

Gone Extinct
Skeptics inferred the necessity of total suspension of judgment on things and were proponents that we can attain release from all bondage to theories and achieve an imperturbable state of mind, which is the foundation of true happiness. True happiness comes from living, which requires a lot of theories and the best use of current knowledge for good judgment. A total suspension of judgment and an imperturbable state of mind leads to ignorance and eventual extinction in the long run. It also leaves us bored and stressed in the short term.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing really survives, although today skepticism has evolved past this starting point to embrace caution and reason. From the most prominent carrier of this banner, Skeptic magazine, comes this re-definition:

"Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: 'All I know is that I know nothing.' But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. When we say we are 'skeptical,' we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe."

The problem with this rebranding of skepticism is that it is now merely restating tenets that are already enshrined in the scientific method. The issue may have become confused because of the slow drift of definitions of the word skeptic to now mean in ordinary language someone who demands proof, but that's no reason to adopt such a confusing term as the masthead of a movement. And the head of the magazine, science writer Michael Shermer, appears to ignore this fact so he can carve out a brand for himself that sounds more specific than being a mere science writer would entail. In the end, however, this just ends up being a clue to a general disrespect for the field of philosophy. While I loudly applaud Shermer's and Skeptic's scientific rigour in debunking pseudoscience over the years, Shermer has recently strayed into the science vs. philosophy debate with an unfortunate take on a science of morality where he makes the following statements:

"First, morality is derived from the Latin moralitas, or “manner, character, and proper behavior.” Morality has to do with how you act toward others. So I begin with a Principle of Moral Good: Always act with someone else’s moral good in mind, and never act in a way that it leads to someone else’s moral loss (through force or fraud). Given this moral principle, the central question is this: On what foundation should we ground our moral decisions?  How do we know that rape and adultery are wrong? We don’t need to ask God. We need to ask the affected moral agent—the rape victim in question, or our spouse or romantic partner who is being cuckolded. They will let you know instantly and forcefully precisely how they feel morally about that behavior. Here we see that the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) has a severe limitation to it: What if the moral receiver thinks differently from the moral doer? What if you would not mind having action X done unto you, but someone else would mind it? Most men, for example, are much more receptive toward unsolicited offers of sex than are women. Most men, then, in considering whether to approach a woman with an offer of unsolicited sex, should not ask themselves how they would feel as a test. This is why in my book The Science of Good and Evil I introduced the Ask-First Principle: To find out whether an action is right or wrong, ask first."

This is very weak. Morals are rules that tell us how we ought to act. Period. They are not only concerned with actions towards another person. Is it moral to kick a puppy, overfish an ocean, or dump waste in a forest? Could you ask any of these life forms for their consent? What about an infant? Or an insane person? Or a terrorist? Shermer's principles do not hold up to any scrutiny. Perhaps he should stick to the business of just being a nay-saying skeptic after all, and we should remain skeptical of anyone who would adopt that term to describe their thinking. Knowing the history of the word now, we surely should.

Stoic calm. To be filled with an inner light while the world around us erodes away. Isn't that a philosophy we'd all like to possess? Sure...but it doesn't come easy. In his Meditations, Marcus Aurelius discussed several practices he used to cultivate this desired state of mind. For example:

"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together."

As the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy describes it, "when considering the doctrines of the Stoics, it is important to remember that they think of philosophy not as an interesting pastime or even a particular body of knowledge, but as a way of life. They define philosophy as a kind of practice or exercise in the expertise concerning what is beneficial. Once we come to know what we and the world around us are really like, and especially the nature of value, we will be utterly transformed." For a Stoic, philosophy isn't just a set of beliefs or ethical claims, it is a way of life involving constant practice and training, including such topics as "logic, Socratic dialog and self-dialog, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment (similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), and daily reflection on everyday problems and possible solutions. Philosophy for a Stoic is an active process of constant practice and self-reminder."

Tough stuff. It fills me with admiration to know that despite the arduousness of this regimen, stoicism became the dominant philosophy among the educated elite in Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire for a period of nearly 800 years. Unfortunately, such personal enlightenment among the ruling class didn't lead them to the political reforms necessary to liberate the slaves and underclasses of that society who found no consolation or justice in such an accepting view of their downtrodden lives. They, as we will soon see, turned instead to Christianity with its promises of reward in an afterlife governed by a forgiving god who loves us despite our sins in this world—a much easier pill to swallow.

For more on Stoicism, and its survival among the fittest philosophies, here are some quotes from its most famous practitioners before I examine the body of Stoic thought in general.

From Epictetus:
Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of men's desires, but by the removal of desire.

Man is disturbed not by things, but by the views he takes of them.

If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone.

From Marcus Aurelius:
Get rid of the judgment, get rid of the 'I am hurt,' you are rid of the hurt itself.

If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word that you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this.

Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond the powers of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe that it is within your own compass also.

Or is it your reputation that's bothering you? But look at how soon we're all forgotten. The abyss of endless time that swallows it all. The emptiness of those applauding hands.

From Seneca the Younger:
The point is, not how long you live, but how nobly you live.

Virtue is nothing else than right reason.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Stoicism (3rd Century BCE) was a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium. Stoicism became the foremost popular philosophy among the educated elite in the Hellenistic world and the Roman Empire. Stoic doctrine was a popular and durable philosophy until the closing of all philosophy schools in 529 AD by order of the emperor Justinian I, who perceived their pagan character as at odds with the Christian faith. (Setting humanity back for the next 1,000 years.)

Survives
All true being is corporeal. Yes. There are no supernatural incorporeal elements to our existence.

The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. The Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions; rather, they sought to transform them by resolute practice and asceticism that enables a person to develop clear judgment and inner calm. Logic, reflection, and concentration were the methods of such self-discipline. Physics embraces the doctrines as to the nature and organization of the universe, and ethics draws from them its conclusions for practical life. Philosophy is the science of the principles on which the moral life ought to be founded. Yes. Had the Stoics had more scientific knowledge, they would have arrived at the right conclusions.

A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism: all people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. This sentiment echoes that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said, "I am not an Athenian or a Corinthian, but a citizen of the world." Yes! And racism, nationalism, and religious belief systems keep us in separate tribes.

Needs to Adapt
The agreement of human action with the law of nature, of the human will with the divine will, or life according to nature, is virtue, the chief good and highest end in life. There is no divine will, but we must obey the laws of nature and learn to survive to reach our highest possibilities.

The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection," would not suffer such emotions. We are all evolved from the same emotional animals. We will always suffer the tension of short-term individually focused emotions raging against our long-term societal interests. It is true though that a sage can learn to control their emotions through reason and stop them from wreaking destruction.

The Stoics introduced little that was new. They sought instead to give a practical application to the dogmas that they took ready-made from previous systems. The practical application of wisdom is a true virtue of philosophy, but previous systems have not been good enough to follow. New ideas still need to be introduced. I believe these come from the understanding of life inside an evolutionary system.

All knowledge originates in the real impressions of the senses, which the soul, being a blank slate at birth, receives in the form of presentations, which when confirmed by repetitions, are developed by the understanding into concepts. Knowledge does come from our senses and understanding after repetition, but our genes prime us to perceive the world in certain ways. We are not blank slates at birth.

Later Stoics, such as Seneca and Epictetus, emphasized that because "virtue is sufficient for happiness," a sage was immune to misfortune. This belief is similar to the meaning of the phrase “stoic calm." Because the universe is changing and we are in a competition to survive, nothing is immune to misfortune. A sage will accept this, however, and handle it well.

Gone Extinct
Stoicism held a pantheistic belief where God is never fully transcendent but always immanent. Stoicism equates God with the totality of the universe. Stoicism, unlike Christianity, does not posit a beginning or end to the universe. No god is manifested in this universe. It is run as if created by a blind watchmaker. We can now trace back to a beginning of this universe, although we do not know what came before it.
-----------------------------------------------------------

When I watch others attempt to sail through life blissfully, relying on religious beliefs to fill their sails during calm periods of geniality, only to gnash their teeth and wail in doubt during inexplicable times of misfortune, I sometimes struggle to contain loud exhortations for a simpler explanation—that the world is harsh and only we can comfort ourselves and one another—but then I remind myself of Marcus Aurelius and calmly endure. May his and other Stoic practices continue to soothe your life after this reminder of their capacities. Peace.

In early 2003, I traveled to Ukraine to be a Peace Corps volunteer for the next two years. It was an amazing experience, opening my eyes to countless new things in terms of foods, cultures, beliefs, customs, arts, history, languages, architecture, etc. About 9 months into my service though, missing life in the U.S., missing my own family's huge Thanksgiving tradition (we always have 50-80 relatives in a large church hall), a large group of volunteers decided to have our own Thanksgiving in a small 2-bedroom apartment in the western city of Lviv. About 45 people, all earning $200 per month, paid to travel on uncomfortable overnight train rides to cross a country the size of Texas just to get to this party. The food was so-so (there were just some things you couldn't get in Ukraine), many people had to use paper plates and plastic utensils, I think everyone ate off their laps because there was no room to set up a table, and we all sat on radiators, the edge of a bureau, a window sill, or even just the floor. It was fantastic. It was…Epicurean.

He who is not satisfied with a little, is satisfied with nothing.

Self-sufficiency is the greatest of all wealth.

Of all the means which wisdom acquires to ensure happiness throughout the whole of life, by far the most important is friendship.

These are the words of Epicurus, a greek philosopher commonly associated with his view that "pleasure is the greatest good." Like much of history and philosophy, like much of all communication in fact, the actual intent of this idea gets lost in translation though because we don't always take the time to learn the definitions that others are using. Especially, as in cases like this, when they use more subjective words like pleasure or good. This is probably why philosophers often prefer to use obscure greek phrases like eudaimonia for happiness or welfare, ataraxia for peace and freedom from fear, or aponia for the absence of pain. We use these words to snap others out of their preconceived notions in the hopes that they will open their minds and engage in true dialogue to seek mutual understanding. At least, that's a generous view of why some people employ obscurantism in their writing.

In that spirit, I was reminded of two other foreign words when I was reviewing the philosophy of Epicureanism for this week's post. The first, came from an article about the Danish concept of hygge (sounds sort of like HYU-gah). Roughly, it means "coziness," "togetherness," and "well-being." "It's like a feeling, and it's big at Christmastime. The candles, the food, being with your family." I love naming this concept to help us own it, seek it out, and strive for it. Clearly Epicurus, with his emphasis on the importance of friendship, would approve. Once we're with those friends though, it's important to stay on the right side of the haimish line with them. I came across this concept in a New York Times op-ed from David Brooks in 2011. In that essay, Brooks describes an African vacation he took with his family where he stayed at two different types of camps. "The simple camps were friendly, warm and familial. We got to know the other guests at big, communal dinner tables. The more elegant camps felt colder. At one, each family had its own dinner table, so we didn’t get to know the other guests. The tents were spread farther apart. We also didn’t get to know the staff, who served us mostly as waiters, the way they would at a nice hotel. I know only one word to describe what the simpler camps had and the more luxurious camps lacked: haimish. It’s a Yiddish word that suggests warmth, domesticity and unpretentious conviviality. It occurred to me that when we moved from a simple camp to a more luxurious camp, we crossed an invisible Haimish Line. The simpler camps had it, the more comfortable ones did not." This is such a beautiful description of the importance of philosophical contentment in life. Back to some quotes from Epicurus on this:

It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul.

Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.

These are great words to glean from Epicurus, which is one of the reasons why he is still worth studying. For a look at his larger works in the context of modernity though, here's what I had to say about his survival among the fittest philosophers:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epicureanism (3rd Century BCE) is a system of philosophy based upon the teachings of Epicurus. Epicureanism was originally a challenge to Platonism, though later it became the main opponent of Stoicism.

Survives
Epicurus was an atomic materialist. His materialism led him to a general attack on superstition and divine intervention. Ok, so far.

Needs to Adapt
Epicurus believed that pleasure is the greatest good. But the way to attain pleasure was to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. This led one to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear, as well as absence of bodily pain. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from hedonism as it is commonly understood. Life, not pleasure, is the sole intrinsic good. The observation that “this life is all there is” is correct. The conclusion that “we ought to just enjoy it then” ignores the fact that progress is required in order to hold on to life. Fortunately, after billions of years of evolution, we do derive pleasure from applying ourselves to this effort. A fuller understanding of pleasure is required to consider this belief system. The simplicity with which it is represented is often dangerous.

In practical questions, the feelings of pleasure and pain are the tests. Pleasures of sense however are subordinate to the pleasures of the mind so the renunciation of pleasure or the endurance of pain is often a means to a greater pleasure. The cardinal virtue then is prudence, which is shown by true insight in calculating the consequences of our actions as regards pleasure or pain. Prudence is a chief virtue, but pain and pleasure are not the ultimate tests. Life or death is the ultimate test. If the environment changed so that pain was required to survive, we would suffer this pain. We already do.

Gone Extinct
Epicureanism admitted abstruse learning only when it serves the ends of practical wisdom; hence logic is subservient to physics, which in turn is subservient to ethics. It has hard to say ahead of time what learning is abstruse or not. It may all lead to knowledge that is crucially connected to our long-term survival. In a vast interconnected web, no form of learning is absolutely subservient to another.

Epicureanism emphasized the neutrality of the gods, that they do not interfere with human lives. It states that gods, matter, and souls are all made up of atoms. Souls are made from atoms, and gods possess souls, but their souls adhere to their bodies without escaping. Humans have the same kind of souls, but the forces binding human atoms together do not hold the soul forever. Nonsense theories before science uncovered what atoms and bodies actually are.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not much survives intact from 2300 years ago, but perhaps that's to be expected. However, a great lesson can still be taken from this school of thought about what is truly important to lead an "epicurean" life, and why the definition behind that word—as behind all words—is vitally important too.

This was the place where Aristotle immersed himself in the empirical studies of the natural world, becoming the genuine scientist in history. Associates of the Lyceum conducted research into a wide range of subjects, botany, biology, logic, music, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, cosmology, physics, the history of philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, ethics, theology, rhetoric, political history, government and political theory, rhetoric, and the arts. The Lyceum collected manuscripts in all of these fields, which according to some historians, makes it the first great library of antiquity. Indeed, it has been suggested that Aristotle was probably the last person to know everything there was to be known in his own time.

As such, it's no wonder that coming from an evolutionary philosophy point of view—one that is driven to think about the deepest questions of life using the knowledge we have from our understanding of history, science, and evolution—much of Aristotle's methods and thought survives. His tools may have been crude and the cumulative learning he relied upon was scant compared to what we have today, but it seems doubtless that Aristotle would approve of continuing to examine the world the way evolutionary philosophers do. Unfortunately, we only have 31 of his approximately 200 treatises, and the writing that survives, "makes heavy use of unexplained technical terminology, and his sentence structure can at times prove frustrating...haphazardly organized, if organized at all…(which) helps explain why students who turn to Aristotle after first being introduced to the prose in Plato's dialogues often find the experience frustrating." Skipping over that frustration, here are some of his choice words plucked out for admiration before his general thoughts are examined.

If there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake, clearly this must be the good. Will not knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what we should? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is.

Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

Happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often found with those who are highly cultivated in their minds and in their character, and have only a moderate share of external goods, than among those who possess external goods to a useless extent but are deficient in higher qualities.

I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.

Knowledge of the fact differs from knowledge of the reason for the fact.

It is simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences.

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

It is of the nature of desire not to be satisfied, and yet most men live only for the gratification of it.

The law is reason unaffected by desire.

He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.

The best friend is the man who in wishing me well wishes it for my sake.

To the query, "What is a friend?" his reply was "A single soul dwelling in two bodies."

The appropriate age for marriage is around eighteen for girls and thirty-seven for men.

(Apparently, in addition to possessing uncommon sense, he had a sense of humor as well.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was a Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. For almost two millennia, Aristotle was known as “The Philosopher.”

Survives
Whereas Plato sought to explain things from the supra-sensual standpoint of the forms, his pupil preferred to start from the facts given us by experience. As a student at Plato’s academy, Aristotle’s main concern was knowledge, gathered through observing natural phenomena. He loved to categorize things. He virtually invented logic and pioneered several sciences. To him, philosophy was logic and science. Philosophy helps direct our questions with its long tradition of inquiry, but the answers do come from science and logic.

Aristotle recognizes the true being of things in their concepts, but denies any separate existence of the concept apart from the particular objects of sense. Yes. Categories help us make sense of the real world, but there are no perfect forms behind the categories.

Known for the Golden Mean - avoiding extremes in ideals and behavior. Life requires many tradeoffs and many balances between short-term and long-term, self and society, and cooperation and competition. The Golden Mean is the right way to approach finding these balances.

Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see. Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and that this function must be an activity of the soul in accordance with reason. Aristotle identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the aim of all human deliberate action, eudaimonia, generally translated as "happiness." To have the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a good character, moral virtue, or excellence. The meaning of life is to live. Humans are happiest when they act in ways that ensure the long-term survival of the species.

Needs to Adapt
The end of human activity, or the highest good, is happiness. The highest good is life. Fortunately, we are made happy by good life.

The natural community according to Aristotle was the city (polis), which functions as a political "community" or "partnership." The aim of the city is not just to avoid injustice or maintain economic stability, but rather to allow at least some citizens the possibility to live a good life, and to perform beautiful acts: The political partnership must be regarded, therefore, as being for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together. The sake of living together is a noble action required for the long-term survival of the species. All citizens should be able to participate in this endeavor or else they will revolt and endanger others.

Gone Extinct
In Aristotelian science, most especially in biology, things he saw himself have stood the test of time better than his retelling of the reports of others, which contain error and superstition. He dissected animals but not humans; his ideas on how the human body works have been almost entirely superseded. Aristotle's writings on science are largely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. Beginning in the 16th century, scientists began applying mathematics to the physical sciences, and Aristotle's work in this area was deemed hopelessly inadequate. His failings were largely due to the absence of concepts like mass, velocity, force, and temperature. He had a conception of speed and temperature, but no quantitative understanding of them, which was partly due to the absence of basic experimental devices, like clocks and thermometers. Though undoubtedly, he would have used these tools if he had them.

Aristotle's justification of the subservience of slaves and others to the virtue of a few justified the ideal of aristocracy. Where some are slaves, none are free. This creates chaos and inefficiency in society. It endangers all. We have not evolved from bee colonies; we have evolved from small egalitarian tribes. No slavery is permitted. Aristotle's aristocracy is wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------