Symposium Philosophicum III

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Symposium Philosophicum III

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:33 pm

Salvete Romani,

For those familiar with the concept: YES YES, another symposium, grander than ever, is to be held at Villa Draconis, on a remote island not very far away from Capri, with environments both exuberant and calm and varied company ranging from the most vulgar drunkard to the most sophisticated, erm, sophist ;). You get the gist: the Villa Draconis is the hottest place to be with regards to philosophy and partying.

Lest Piscinus accuse me of stinginess, litres of the best wine have been imported from the main land, enough to satisfy even Locatus' thirst and to fill the Tartaros with. But we have also thought of the stoic ascetic, having built a temple on a high mountain peak, overseeing the misty green valley, which at night sleeps under a blanket of a thousand stars and the rolling waves of the ocean.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, here's what's it about: basically, three up to ... people join each other for a debate with a more or less fixed order of subjects, each one of them embodying a philosophical current from the ancient world. Just like Greek symposia, we centre around the wine table talking the day (and night away).

So okay peeps, I'll be your host, but this won't prevent me from also partaking in the debate ;).

The topics for Symposium III will be:
* Is absolute peace possible?
* Can there be a limit to our knowledge?

What I need are the following:
* A minimum of two other debaters. Applicants are accepted under this topic during the whole week. The symposium is to commence on January 18.
* Applicants should select one of the following currents: presocratic natural philosophy, pythagoreanism, heraclitanism, sophism, epicureanism, stoicism, Roman stoicism, cynicism, cyrenaeism, platonism, neo-platonism or aristoteleanism. Eclectics are also welcome. Be aware that if you are the voice of a philosophy, you should know something about it, even though you can freely interpret it.
* No two participants can take the same current, or switch currents during the debate (hmmm... that might be an idea for Symposium IV... forced switching ;)).

Don't be shy!

Valete bene,
Scorpio
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Re: Symposium Philosophicum III

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:10 am

Salve mi Scorpio

Gnæus Dionysius Scorpio wrote:Salvete Romani,

Lest Piscinus accuse me of stinginess, litres of the best wine have been imported from the main land, enough to satisfy even Locatus' thirst and to fill the Tartaros with


What, Campanian wine? It takes ten years to mature and never improves with age thereafter. Falerian is much overrated as are the Massic and Caecuban wines of that region. Roman wines are finer, and Marsian wines have more body. Now Augustus preferred wine from Setia, while Julia Augusta drank only wine from Pucinum, and his uncle Julius was fond of the wines of Messana. I am not in such illustriuous company as they, but a very dry, finely aged wine of Aminaea would do nicely for me. Fortunately I shall be out of town and unable to attend your symposium (hopefully my host will have better fare to offer). After Locatus and Mus have drained your cellars there will be little point of my arriving. Optima Fortuna!

Vale optime
Moravius Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:12 pm

Salve Piscine,

Well actually us Belgae prefer beer! Wine was imported to satisfy those Italic home boys ;).

Vale bene!
Scorpio
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Beer or Wine? Wine of course!

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:40 pm

Salve Scorp,


All right, count me in. Cynism it is. and Wine :wink:


Vale,

Loc
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Curio Agelastus on Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:49 pm

Salvete,

I suppose you ignorant people have never heard of Curioism, the obscure philosophy of ancient times? I happen to be the world's leading expert in it. Until the philosophical prejudices of Scorpio are allayed ;-) I suppose I cannot take part in this symposium, though I shall be on the sidelines.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:34 pm

Well Curio, I'll make an exception and "allow" you as an eclectic. After all, it doesn't have to be that strict. So let's see who we have:

Sokarus - stoicism (is that right?)
Locatus - cynicism
Curio - curionism ;)
Coruncianus - undecided (?)
Draco - sophism

Anyone else?

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:06 pm

Salve Draco
Correction Draco, it is platonism not stoicism.
vale
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Curio Agelastus on Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:59 pm

Salve,

Ah, so I am to take part then! I shall ferociously argue the case for Curionism - I mean eclectism, of course - against the more mainstream philosphies. Although, Mi Draco, eclectism is an accurate name - I'm influenced by ancient cynicism, modern cynicism, existentialism, marxism, and many others, so I hope to bring an interesting flavour to the symposium. :-)

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:05 pm

*claps his hands out of joy*

Good good good... So let's run down the list again. We have:

Q. Claudius Locatus the cynic
S. Aurelius Orcus the platonic
M. Scribonius Curio the eclectic
Gn. Dioynsius Draco Invictus the sophist, and
Coruncianus (what is your full name?) the stoic

Our first topic shall be: can there be a limit to our knowledge?

This will be the order of speakers for the first topic:
1. Curio
2. Sokarus
3. Coruncianus
4. Draco
5. Locatus

Don't post before it's your turn (afterwards you still can in defence of a comment you received).

Optime valete!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Jan 25, 2003 1:07 pm

Don't worry about it ;).

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Curio Agelastus on Sun Jan 26, 2003 10:29 pm

**Curio walks into the villa, assessing the small audience. They all have their drinks to hand, and Curio asks for a rare wine from Apulia, to moisten the back of his throat."

Our first topic is the limit of knowledge, and I shall be arguing the case from my own unique eclectic point of view.

Of course, the first point to make is a distinction between different types of knowledge. Firstly, there is personal knowledge - that which a sentient being knows. Then there is absolute knowledge - quite simply, that which is a fact. After all, it may be that no sentient being knows the mass of a certain planet on the outer reaches of the universe. But can you deny that this is nonetheless knowledge?

However, given that the question asked was "Can there be a limit to OUR knowledge", I will assume that we are debating the nature of personal knowledge.

This question is not discussing human fallacies or faults. Some might argue that, since no memory can be infinite, our knowledge is inherently limited. However, the question still refers to *our* knowledge, and therefore it is speaking of collective knowledge, including written knowledge, which has no blocks such as memory.

I do not subscribe to the idea of certain single concepts being "unknowable" - surely that goes against the very nature of a concept. If a concept or idea is unknowable, then what is it? It's nothing, because it is inherent to the nature of a concept that it is knowable. Some might point to the human brain as being incomprehensible, but that is only by ourselves. A being with more intelligence would have no problem understanding our mind, and hence the mind is not incomprehensible.

The same goes for concepts that are, by their very nature, incomprehensible for beings that use our mathematical system. For instance, consider the square root of -1. An impossible number? Only for us - the square root of -1 has been proven to exist, and it is comprehensible, just not by humans.

So there are certainly limits to our knowledge, if "our" indicates humans. There are blocks to our knowledge of our own making - such as our mathematical system meaning that we can use mathematical concepts without truly comprehending them, as with the supergravity theory.

And there are limits to the knowledge of all sentient beings, for which we must not look outwards, but inwards. As the renowned philosophical saying goes, "Know thyself." However, this is an impossibility. No person can know themselves entirely - in addition, no person can have complete knowledge of another person.

Such knowledge is unknowable in a complete form, because no person can have complete knowledge of him/herself or another person. Such is the limit to our knowledge - but the majority of knowledge is knowable, if not always comprehensible by our own minds.

**Curio draws in a deep breath, and notices that most of his audience have finished their drinks, and appear to be considering whether it would be bad taste to throw them at the speaker. He hurriedly sits down, and waits for the screams of abuse to commence.**
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Mon Jan 27, 2003 10:23 pm

Sokarus puts his glass of red wine on the table and stands up. He coughs first before speaking.

Knowelegde is both limited and unlimited to me. There are things in our universe that we don't know off and is impossible to know and can only be speculated on: like the creation of our universe, black holes, etc.. I believe that the Empiristswere the onces who said that all knowelegde, theories should be tested before accepted to be true. As this is a true statement however we can not test all theories which leaves room for speculation and beliefs: like it is hard to test that there is life after death because there will always be someone who can discredit the theory and evidencess or has a valid argument. But some theories can be put to the test like the existence of extre terrastrials, etc... However Curio has a point which itend to agree. It is impossible to know everything because our minds can process as much information it can do which in some way can be compaired to a pc. Put to much info/data into the pc and it will overload. I believe it to be true concerning the brain. How much information we can process with our brain is limited because it is subjected to natural laws. Our souls however may contain info gathered over past lifetimes, just not reacheble by everyone. It can only be reached trough series of meditations or rituals to gain access to the info our soul has gathered over past lifetimes. Even though i tend to believe that the metaphysical and the physical work together. The one does not need the other to funcion and the metaphysical laws are yet another subject to debate and speculate about. It is also something that we may not fully understand it because we belong to the natural and not to the supernatural which is the realm of our souls, daemons and Gods. A supernatural being, like daemons and Gods can teach us anything there is to know of everything but the real question or questions we should be asking is: are we ready to receive such a information? And can be handle the truth?

Sokarus takes his glass of fine red wine back into his hand as he is going to sit down again. He anxiously awaits any comment and criticism as the next speaker is prepared to step up to the plate.
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Fri Jan 31, 2003 11:25 pm

Salvete salvete amici mi!

Good to have you here. Heard some interesting opinions. Allow me to comment them and show you how I feel about attaining knowledge from my own sophist point of view which will mainly be in our own style; by contradicting the arguments of my fellow philosophi. Let it be known that Plato was a liar. He depicted his idol, Sokrates, as his great champion who could silence all sophists. In fact repeatedly Sokrates was sent home by us after a rhetorical thrashing he received, but since some of our books were burnt - dangerous types we were! - the other party is never heard. Plato reeks of hypocrisy. Condems rhetorics but uses them themselves. He uses poison to poison the poisoners and claim he's not a poisoner, bathing in the blood of the innocent.

But enough now, I am diverting!

Our good friend Curio claims that only personal knowledge exists. As far as that goes I agree in terms of empircal knowledge. It shows that he is definitely still a Briton, and not as Roman has he'd like to be, nonne (cheeky wink at Curio)? It's a good point of view: knowledge we don't have is simply no knowledge and therefore nothing. But on the other hand, every human being is limited by his very being. This implies the recognition of knowledge we can't possess yet is most certainly there. Knowledge is not always bound to observation, by the way. Think of mathematics or physics. Mathematical knowledge is obtained without observation.

Curio sails around these limits by implying the infinite potential of a collective memory. But a collective of finite memories does not build an infinite one. In fact it never can. A zillion of cars will never be able to walk because they don't have legs. As such, a zillion of human beings will never be able to think in five spatial dimensions simply because they're only made up of three - as far as we know, of course (gracious bow to Curio). I do agree with his point of the "knowability" of a concept. Once you name something, you start knowing it, even if it is just a little. And in fact from this point on I agree with most of what he says even though I feel it's a little self-contradictory for reasons I gave earlier.

I think that we all agree that we are limited by the very instruments which we also get our main input through to explore the world. I don't think however, such as our humble friend Coruncianus, that one of these blocks are emotions. In fact, emotion can augment our rational mind in several ways. A good psychologist able to help a person will certainly be a man of the mind more than intuition and emotion, but emotions are also important in getting a firm grip on the situation and being able to help a patient. The importance of emotion and instincts is gravely underestimated in getting to known the world. And in fact, they can never be set apart from our rational mind and our senses. Just like body and soul are one continuum, so are our senses, our mind and our emotions. Seperation is dangerous and luckily also impossible. A mind without emotion is a cold lens... A telescope with no one to enjoy the stars!

Sokare, amice Belga, I wonder how you got in possession of such fine glasswork. Must be a very personal custom. Have a cup man and cast aside these new fashions. Although (smirkingly, tounge in cheek) I must say I do admire your subversiveness. Have some more wine, you! ;)

So Sokare, unlike me you believe in gods, in daemons and in the soul. As this topic revolves around knowledge... If these things you talk about exist, how can such knowledge be attained? Like all platonics you claim meditation, rituals and study form the basis of this. But in turn these must be based on something else - something, according to the platonic point of view, earthly and imperfect unless you want to beg the question. So, arriving at perfection by imperfect means again eh? I don't think so!

*Draco lies down again, waiting for replies to come or for Locatus, our notorious cynic, to speak*
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:28 am

salve Draco
Although i will ignore the remark you gave me on my clothes, which doesn't really bother me. Although people can tell me i have no taste for clothes which haven't happened yet. I can tell you this: the only person who has the wear the clothes is me and nobody else. Anyway back to the topic. Locate, sorry for the intrusion but i had to say something.
The deeds of Plato put aside, which raises the question about philosophy? Which is more important: the philosopher or the philosophy?
I have to say Draco, i'm kind of dissapointed with this symposium. Personnaly i thaught that there were going to be more topics. But since you organize this party, it would be your call.
Where was I? Oh yes. Could you elaborate what you meant by your last phrase because i didn't quit understand it.
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sat Feb 01, 2003 12:45 pm

A voice from the audience is heard in reply:

Sokarus Aurelius Orcus wrote: Could you elaborate what you meant by your last phrase because i didn't quit understand it.


I would not worry of it, mi Orce. Sophists only offer meaningless gibberish, meant to confuse an issue, and only so they can be rapturously engrossed in the sound of their own voice. As nosrus amicus Draco has demonstrated, the Sophists have not a thought of their own but only comment on the views of others, and did not offer one salient point in answer to the question.

Piscinus pours a libation to the shade of Socrates.
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:28 pm

Salve Sokare,

You must know that in this symposium, I play but a role. It was not meant as a personal remark. Just a jest that you were using a glass, which to my knowledge were not used at symposia. That's the kind of "fashion" (as in "trend") I was referring to. About the subjects: in symposium 1 I tried to have 3 subjects but things proceeded so slow that the last one was dropped in favour of pace.

Sokarus Aurelius Orcus wrote:salve Draco
Where was I? Oh yes. Could you elaborate what you meant by your last phrase because i didn't quit understand it.


I thought it was quite clear. You can't arrive at something perfect using imperfect means: an imperfect machine will never build a perfect product. Likewise, to attain the Platonic ideal of perfection is impossible because you yourself are imperfect, and the materials you want to attain perfection with (which stem from earthly, common means) are imperfect too.

Piscine, amice, the boomerang strikes back: you yourself accuse me of basing my philosophy only on reactions, but in accusing me of it you do exactly the same! ;)

Vale bene!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:37 pm

Salve Draco
Hmm thank you for the explanations. Maybe its time to quit drinking while i still can. Too much booze can hurt your brain you know. Concerning your last phrase. I really didn't get until you explained what you meant. Now i anxious await until Locatus start talking to see what he has to say about the topic.
vale optime
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

cynic

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sat Feb 01, 2003 9:54 pm

Salve Amici,


I must say I had a good laugh about all the chit-chat that has been told until now. Is there a limit to our knowledge? Dare, dare...

What is knowledge? I donot know? Is there knowledge? I don't think so. People think they know something, but actually they don't. Everything we do is not about 'knowing' something, It is just because of an animalistic impulse we had to do it. Thinking is no more and no less then what nature has given to us. A kind of instinct. We should try to guard it, and not spoiling it by questions as 'what do I know?' or 'Can I know everything?' These questions lead to nothing and will not help us in our deeds.

Knowing is no more than the biochemical reaction in our brain, as mother nature has given to us. So how much can we know? As long our biological system can store 'knowledge' (if there is something as 'knowledge'). And we shouldn't spoil our minds with it, we will act as we have to, as we will do what nature orders us to do.

Why should we try to understand, surpress and rationalize? Do animals understand? surpress feelings? I don't think so, and still they live a happy life without worriyng about the day of tomorrow.

Give me some more wine, Scorp... er... Draco! You know, I'm quite cynical about your name change :wink: !


Vale etc,

Loc
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sun Feb 02, 2003 2:14 pm

Salve Draco

Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:Piscine, amice, the boomerang strikes back: you yourself accuse me of basing my philosophy only on reactions, but in accusing me of it you do exactly the same! ;)


You must travel far, mi amice, to "know" it is out of fashion to have glasses, yet be able to fling boomerangs about. Anyone have a frisbie to toss around with Marius' dogs?
:lol:

Vale
Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sun Feb 02, 2003 8:48 pm

By the Gods Piscine, I made a stupid mistake there. *buries head in toga*

Meanwhile, our next topic is starting! The order of speakers remains unchanged (meaning Curio starts). The next question for you gentlemen is: is absolute peace possible?

Be crafty, be wise!

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Next

Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron