If you want to live an Epic life, keep it simple and true.
=

我要考虑一会儿。但是，我也会给好心的读者留下这样一个小想法:大多数事情，宗教;哲学;无论是科学的还是政治的，我们都倾向于改变以适应时代的相关。这样做，我们就永远改变了我们所修补的东西的最初意图。这是一个进化的过程，与人类改变那些可能无法接受或不方便的事情的倾向交织在一起。这些听起来熟悉吗?看看你的周围。思考一段时间。我有。

吉祥的出生，美好的生活和从容的死亡，谁不选择享乐主义呢?
But, if one's life was in the context of a perfect storm of misfortunes (as was the case with Plato), who wouldn't turn to Stoicism or escape the material world into an imaginary reality, as Plato did? (The poet, Robert Frost, once mocked the philosophy of Plato in a paraphrase: "The woman you have is an imperfect copy of some woman in heaven or in someone else's bed.") The tragedy of Western philosophy is that the views of Plato rather than Epicurus has ruled for more than two millennia.

什么，我刚从午睡中醒来。柏拉图的观点是悲剧?让我想想:比利·莎士比亚写悲剧，是吗?那个俄国人——他的名字我不会拼(那个古拉格的家伙……)曾经嘲笑海明威的《丧钟为谁而鸣》。谁在乎,真的吗?我读过海明威的作品，虽然我觉得他的散文在一种宏大的意义上是伤感的。鲍勃·迪伦(Bob Dylan)的一首歌里有一句台词，我只能依稀记得:关于罗伯特·弗罗斯特(Robert Frost)和杰西·詹姆斯(Jesse James) ?嗯?——哦,是的;我刚醒，没关系。 Heh---------------------------------------. Hasn't someone said that Shakespeare was a fraud, or never existed, or some other brou-ha-ha? Doesn't matter much now, does it? No. And it never did. Unless one believes in some sort of immortality. Everything dies. But, it seems doubtful that non-human life worries about that---I did not feel guilt with my last bite of venison. I am glad his progeny will not likely stalk me with a 41 magnum pistol. My good luck...must watch where I drive though. We make history---not always well; but, not all ways poorly. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

mirugal:我倾向于同意你的总体观点，但我认为问题还不止于此。
想想25个世纪前，受过教育的希腊人、埃及人或巴比伦人明白世界是球形的，并设想它固定在天空中，就像珍珠固定在牡蛎中一样。或者，人们可以把它想象成一个亲密、舒适的子宫般的宇宙，太阳、月亮和恒星距离地球都是等距的。然后出现了一个牛虻，以弗所的赫拉克利特，他宣称唯一不变的是变化，现实是一条河流，永远在流动，永远在变化。哲学家们都惊呆了。一些人转向了怀疑主义，而最突出的人则寻求保存永久性。最成功和最有影响力的是柏拉图，他得出结论，物质世界是一个影子，是真实现实的一个不完美的复制品，只有在抽象的观念世界中才能找到。
15个世纪前，在柏拉图和基督教的影响下，一位受过良好教育的欧洲人接受了这样的观点:地球是平的，在一个有序而完美的宇宙中心静止不动。在科学爆发之前，一千年被称为黑暗时代的强制的永恒过去了，科学爆发的不是令人信服的证据，而是火药。人类现在有能力用核武器毁灭自己，很快，基因武器将能够使人类的某些部分丧失能力或毁灭。所以，哲学和宗教在哪里，如果不是还在挣扎着走出黑暗时代。(平心而论，美国的哲学实用主义已经重拾了一些赫拉克利特(Heraclitus)的真知灼见，但仍有许多工作要做。)

"The most successful and influential was Plato, who concluded that the material world was a shadow, or an imperfect copy of a genuine reality"
Shadows are real too, aren't they?
=
=

As a modern-day Buddha has been known to say: And just so. We find, in the course of thought and ensuing discourse, that we agree upon some things and not on some others. Which came first, chicken or egg? We have puzzled over that one for a couple of millinea at least. But it is actually a koan, of sorts, because neither the chicken, nor ITS egg came first: the dinosaur and/or ITS egg did. The Carpenter sounds like an old, experienced fart; Mirugai: a thinker; and Arvo? An analytical paleontologist, along the lines of Stephen J. Gould---sorry if that offends---I do not know you (or--maybe, I do?)---but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
All of you are quite right, I believe. Arvo was likely most direct when stating that the problem goes deeper.
1. Science and religion have an enmity borne of ages. Religion probably came first, and therefore claims dominion over the souls and affairs of men. Take me on faith, it implores...for I and my tenets are unassailable.
God says so. End of story.
2. Science is the young pup in the kennel. But, even so, science began when the first fire-maker (or fire-preserver) burned his fingers. He did not wish to do that again. So, science began. Now, see, science is smart and takes nothing on faith. And science has proven wrong many aspects of faithful foundations. Older dogs chew up young pups. And, religion, along with its cousins, superstition and ignorance, are formidible older dogs.
3. And, as such is just so: the duality of religion and science is, I submit, ONE of the deeper problems. There are, of course, several others. My brother and I discussed this topic after he asked me what I thought was mankind's biggest problem. I said I thought it was fear. We are still working on this one.
It seems we shall never overcome our deeper problems, although we solve the shallower ones everyday. Weren't some of you saying that anyway? No? Not exactly---O.K.
Well,---we cannot agree upon everything, can we? Love the blog; love the originators and commenters,

This is a most unusual blog: It does not sell the inherent intellectual prowess of its creators; does not pander to un-associated interests---if my spider sense is not fogged by my exhaustion---; and, as stated, it does not question the intelligence of its' commenters, or as someone might say: anything(within reason) goes. Keep on, fellow-explorers---keep on. I'm fished---what? (oh, I'm fished is an old colloquialism for: you've fished me in.)
Maybe you know it better as: you reeled me in. Or better yet: I'm hooked, but---I'm hooked has a such a poor brain-feel about it (social paranoias about drugs and all...)
oh, well....................................................., sure.

Shadows are not real?
你确定吗，哈罗德?
It seems Plato had a hard time with shadows being real in a cave as well.
Perhaps Ken and John you could do a future show on the reality of a shadow, Pato's cave, illusions, the science of physics or the measure of nature, light and optical effects, or more simply: what is real? I for One have no shadow of a doubt that shadows are as real as light, or that night is but a real shadow of the light of day.
Thanks again for the wonderful place to think and write,
=

你是鸡和蛋。是时候解决这个问题了。一只原型鸡下的蛋变成了第一只鸡。于是蛋先出来了。原型鸡并不是一只鸡。
Now that that is settled, at least in my mind, the point I found most interesting in the Epicurus discussion was the notion that much of which philosophy has long concerned itself, "being", "virtue". "truth", "beauty", etc. is not much more than an unfortunate result of humans having acquired language. We make up these concepts, communicate them, then argue and fret over them as though they exist.

As to the reality of shadows, I have to agree with Michael. As a former civil engineer, I tend to take a simple and practical view of things (bearing in mind the proviso of Albert Einstein that an explanation can be as simple as possible, not any simpler).
Reality, as I understand it, implies freedom from deception, something that is as it is with or without anyone being cognizant of it, and something constantly changing or in flux. What has bothered philosophers is that if everything is undergoing constant change, then nothing "is." Even some modern "process philosophers" seem to take the view that only the process is real but Heraclitus was more pragmatic, observing that, "In change is rest."

Once again, we are caught up in terms which may (or may not) convey Michael's message of truth. Shadows. Illusions. Reality. Fred said the same thing, essentially, that I read before---something about dinosaur's eggs, etc. And then there is of course, deception: not uniquely a human propensity, but certainly refined by us over several millinea (at least). Heraclitus aside, "the only thing constant IS change" (emphasis mine). If everything is "real", then this means (I suppose) that shadows and illusions are real---as are deceptions-real in the sense that WE recognize them. But this is leading back to the circularity of chicken and egg, isn't it?
Tim, you are lucid and we sometimes think on similar tracks---help me out here? There are these separate realities*, and I cannot seem to fathom them. So, why is that? Am I ignorant---are they realities, or homo-constructs, borne of the imaginings of philosophers and scientists such as ourselves?
I keep thinking about Pinker's work; the meaning(s) of life; and semantics generally. We just keep playing with that damned chicken and egg: Perhaps, the yolk is on us, hmmmm? Probably so.
Good Night Friends,
The Carpenter.
(* the allusion is to Carlos Castaneda's A SEPARATE REALITY, from an earlier century...)

Shadows? Real? As real as political ideologies, I guess. But I won't get ground up in this one. No thanks. Been reading S.J. Gould some more. WONDERFUL LIFE, to be exact. Inasmuch as this post has had much ado about the good life, I was interested in Gould's OEOs concerning the life of Charles Doolittle Walcott. Seems that Charlie was a better than middling paleontologist and scientist who made interesting discoveries in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Thing is, that after Charlie made these discoveries, he got caught up in his own unfinished legend...became, as Gould noted, an administrator, and as such, lost his first love: applied science. Oh, there were tragedies in Walcott's life---just as there are tragedies in the lives of us all. C.D. Walcott accomplished many great things and had, by any reasonable measure, an exceedingly good life.
But, if Gould's account is anywhere near truth, Charlie Walcott regretted not getting the Burgess Shale job done.
“这样。”确实。很多时候，我们推迟了《美好生活》的某些方面，相信我们总有一天会回到那些让我们的生活变得有价值的方面。就像我们中的许多人一样，查理·沃尔科特只是没有时间了——而且似乎直到他去世的那一年才意识到这一点。
Friends, family, acquaintences and strangers ask me: How are you? People pose this question to other people everyday---either MEANING it, or merely making inane banter, based on current social and cultural standards.
我的新回应来自一首流行歌曲中的一句歌词(我忘了是哪个年代了——它们现在看起来都一样了):“……这都是一派胡言……”给我讲讲《美好生活》吧，如果你知道那是什么。我要听。在某种程度上，我甚至会同意。生活是精彩的，它就是精彩的生活。但是，事情并没有像我们计划的那样发展，不是吗?

哲学家巴罗斯·邓纳姆(Barrows Dunham)提供了一段有趣的小故事:两位大学教授在学校食堂里展开了一场哲学辩论，其中一位教授午餐选择了黑面包，结果被引导为自己的选择辩护，他说:“健康是件好事。”在严格的哲学追问下，他不得不承认自己不知道自己在说什么。但是，当形势逆转时，审讯者被要求为他的怀疑辩护，他被迫承认他根本没有任何意思;他只是咕哝着赞成或不赞成(“就像猪在食槽旁”，他的同事说)。
德纳姆认为，这就是哲学分析走得太远的危险。那么问题来了，当我们谈论美好生活、民主、现实或任何这样的概念时，我们除了咕哝着赞成或不赞成某些特定的东西，还在说什么吗?
By the way, I would say that a mirage may be real but the water it seems to offer is not. "This statement is false," appears to be a real statement but its meaning is not: the statement is true if it is false and false if it is true. In any case, I enjoy the shadow (shade) of a tree on a hot day whether the shadow is real or not.

谢谢你让我觉得自己是正常人。当我告诉别人我渴望死亡时，他们会认为我很沮丧，想自杀。但我客观地看待它，如果你愿意的话，我会把它与假期或退休作比较。工作很辛苦，你盼着休假。这并不意味着某人想要辞职。也有令人愉快的工作日。:-)

Thought so, TS---just checking though. I suppose the gulf between religion and philosophy is not so great as I once imagined. It is confusing, at times---but we are in it for the long haul, yes? And, mas o menos, we/and/or it may sort it all out. If that is supposed to happen. Still---it is hard to discern WHAT is supposed to happen, isn't it?
Well,---there I go again---heh,heh. Questions. All these questions. Hmmmph, said the camel.

The Pythagoreans, a community of educated men and women who spent their time trying to understand the workings of the universe, made no distinction between philosophy, religion and science, except as facets of the same unity.
苏格拉底说哲学始于奇迹;科学和宗教也是如此(尽管荣格将有组织的宗教描述为对真正宗教体验的防御)。由于泛神论没有官方的异端学说，它的弱点在于它没有提供仇恨和压迫的理由，没有防御任何东西，几乎没有指导。

Facets---yes we have those in many regards, don't we? We CREATE the strengths and weaknesses of our beliefs, because they have neither without our sanction and cooperation; they are nothing without homo sapient consciousness; nothing without cultural and superstitial (similar to superficial) iconographies. I have had discussions and arguments with scientists, philosophers and my brother concerning symbology and symbolism. Most traditionalists and conservatives assert that we can neither persevere nor advance, in any evolutionary sense, without our symbols. My contention is that such antiquated notions have held us back---or, to re-iterate what another commenter has noted: we always get what we have always gotten because we always do what we have always done. One example of this notion is coming up, this coming November...

Symbols, paradigms, and the patterns of evolution and history -- what is anyone to make of them? With respect to politics, Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the parliament of Iceland, put it nicely when, after noting that for the first time in history Iceland had a pure Socialist government added, "But nothing has changed because it is part of the system and the system doesn't change, you see." (Imagine such frankness form North American politicians,) While it seems quite rational to have strong opinions, in the bigger scheme of things, what does it matter who wins in November? It is not the President, Congress and Senate who decide the bigger issues. Money was intended to be a medium of exchange; instead, it has concentrated power in an international plutocracy and put it in control of governments?