In class on Tuesday, we were talking about Stoic Psychology, which I am very interested in because I am a Psychological Sciences major. When we went into occurent  knowledge and dispositional knowledge, I was intrigued. I had never thought before about knowledge that I am currently thinking about and knowledge that I have that is not currently on my mind. To me this is a crazy thought because it is something I knew existed but nothing I took the time to consider. So the idea of occurent and dispositonal knowledge used to be held in my dispositional beliefs but it is currently in my occurent beliefs. Emily S. 9/15 

Emily, I am also a Psych major and was fascinated by our discussion last class! When we talked about how impressions are entirely dependent on the person being affected, I thought of schemas. (Schemas are basically shortcuts for your brain that let you know what to expect from any given situation or behavior. For example, if you go into a classroom at the beginning of the year and see a person standing at the front of the room, you would assume they are the professor and that you should sit in one of the chairs.) In a similar way, an impression is dependent on our background knowledge. To use the example from class: if we were to see a car, we would likely view that object as such, whereas someone from the 1700’s would not have the impression, “That is a Hyundai.” - Katherine Holland 9/16 

For this response I want to focus on this comment made by Marcus Aurelius towards how those who make assertions based on physical desires outside of themselves appear to be, as we have, perhaps influenced through the philological interpretations' thoughts on gender, historical figures of Greco-Roman history along with connections to the general secularity of the individual. The passage reads: “to be pulled by the strings of desire belongs both to wild beasts and to men who have made themselves into women, and to a Phalaris and a Nero: and to have the intelligence that guides to the things which appear suitable belongs also to those who do not believe in the gods, and who betray their country, and do their impure deeds when they have shut the doors,”. While I have spoken briefly on sexuality among those who practice Stoics, this is another example of perhaps now Stoics thought women of the general population acted. Nero is another interesting figure brought up here, both in relation to his ability to control and his sexuality. Nero, like most Roman emperors, hosted games to present his wealth and power through sanctioned violence that was both entertaining and a display of pride for the Roman populace. One difference Nero had when conducting games however was his frequent participation in them, something that others would find uncontrolled and based heavily on desire outside of oneself, as if to entertain for an audience who you should think of as below you. Along with this in relation to sexuality Nero had individual concubines for both penetrating, and receiving penetrating, which to a Roman man at the time would be completely out of place, claiming that Nero had been lost in mind to his own lust. Based on this it isn’t surprising to see his name mentioned in this quote, though I wonder what a Stoic would have a larger problem with. Cal 9/15 

That’s really interesting Cal. I also wonder about how Stoics saw women. I don’t know much about the lives of women in Ancient Greece, but I definitely think that to some extent they were beaten down by the common notions of their supposed intellectual inferiority and in general were much more restricted in their life pursuits, being expelled from academics and positions of political or legal authority. Because of this, I think women Ancient Greece probably made excellent practicing Stoics. After all, across time women have been forced to accept the confines of their social position without argument, and find joy in limitation and in being treated as less than human. Finding freedom to  live a joyous life whilst existing in an oppressive society is definitely “walking the walk” of Stoicism, not just talking the talk…if you know what I mean. Juliana 9/15 

I hadn’t thought about that Juliana but that’s a really interesting thought. Women of this day and age really did have to just keep calm and carry on, even in the face of extreme repression and degradation. In order to maintain a somewhat happy existence, these women I’m sure had to be relatively tough. It reminds me of how we talked about how Stoicism seems a little outdated nowadays because we are not faced with the same tribulations in life as those that existed in the ancient world. Julia G 9-16. 

I’m quite interested in Seneca’s claim about “diseases of the soul” and how the worse one is, the less one percieves it from epistle 53. What exactly would he call such a disease? Some illnesses that were both mental and physical in seneca’s time, such as the “fainting disease” that Julius Ceasar famously had, probably epilepsy, were obvious and hard to obfuscate. Anxiety, depression, and ptsd have long observable histories, though not necessarily by those names. Seneca doesn’t seem to be talking about those sorts of things though, or if he is he seems to walk the same line that many contemporary people do of manipulating the way that they are perceived, as sick or healthy, strong or weak, in order to get what they want. Seneca seems to think that Philosophy can explain this process, and maybe end it, even if it’s not now clear that that’s real or what that would result in. Hunter A 9/16 

In class on Tuesday, one of the things that struck me was the power of impression. I had never realized the agreement our mind has with things that exist and subsist, and how we rarely even think of this agreement. When we have an impression, we assent to it, and this is what can control or behavior and what has the power to release our emotions. This assent to impressions is fascinating and something I would like to learn more about. Luke J 9/16 

The concept of Impressions and assent makes me think about how we default to what ‘seems’ and not necessarily what ‘is.’  We often adopt that, “if it looks like a cat, and sounds like a cat, it's probably a cat” mentality, but Stoicism seems to want to counteract this habit by having us separate appearances from reality. I find this neat since we often get caught up in the moment and how things appear, be it from social interactions or big gestures in the news. We see the surface-level appearance is often manipulated to give the impression of one virtue while hiding the true intentions and vices. Cayden 9/16 

I agree, Cayden. I feel as if using something as simple as an object’s appearance to express the difference between appearances and reality can be directly correlated to our thoughts, and how often it is human nature to mistake reality for an appearance. The Stoic, however, seems to distinguish these appearances from reality and uses it to their advantage. This can also tie into the aspect of fear and living for the future, and how if something is in the unknown future, all it can be in the present is an appearance and nothing else. Luke J 9/ 

In Tuesdays class it was really hard for me to wrap my head around the whole assent, impression, and propositoin ideas the Stoics have. “When we assent to an impression, that is a motion of our mind by which we form a belief”. I don’t get how assent is an event but when we assent to an impression we form a belief. Emily M. 9/16 

Emily, I think the ascent is the rational belief process that filters in the information our senses take in. That is why its an event. It is a step in the thought process that is essential to making choices.  Will 9/16 

I think that the concept of pneuma is very interesting. The idea of having something, literal or figurative, that holds one's body together as a living thing that dissolves when one dies really resonates with me. I think there is something that of course makes someone a living being that differentiates someone alive from someone not. Or even someone that is able to make decisions for themselves compared to somebody that cannot. I am not sure of the exact state of what pneuma is, maybe presence or absence of essential organs or maybe presence or absence of thoughts. Either way, I want to learn more about pneuma. Emily Scher 9/20 

Great point Emily. I also thing pneuma is very interesting. I think it has something to do with consciousness and what makes that happen. I think this is also tied in with how the mind works and the distinction between the mind and the brain. After we die we have a brain but no longer a mind. I think consciousness is really under-studied in science perhaps because it’s so easy to overlook. For instance, so many books are written about the questions of the unvierse, but no one ever thinks to ask who or what is even asking those questions. Juliana 9/21 

There are so many good things to pick out from the Epictetus selection for the week, most if not all I am skeptic of, but at the same time I find very interesting looking in. While I could talk on death, divinity as part of yourself, I want to center this comment around the chapter on friendships as this was the one that shocked me the most. Epictetus begins to state that friendships are incredibly fragmentary, say if you put something of self interest between the two parties and they will fight it out. He then goes on to explain that you need to release your desire for external things to truly garner friends but at the same time a friendship is still external to what you can control with your reasoning faculty. With this in mind I’m curious to a Stoic how preferred are friendships and why or why are they not preferred? As an added thought and just a funny sitcom idea, I’d be very curious how a show about a Stoic relationship councelor and their relationships wih clients and personal obligations would be received. Cal 9/20 

Hi Cal, I also was interested in the interactions stoics have with friends. When I first came into this class, I had the rough idea that stocis were emotionless and self-centered. After this weeks I still have that thought solidified, and I believe friends are not even close to the center of stoicism. What we would consider friends is someone who you spend time with and help out. This would not be considered in the stoic mind, as they would never do something that would be preferable to them. I think the biggest problem with this is that in today's society we value friends much more than the past society's viewed friends. As we would put friends toward the center of our day to day life, ancient society and especially stoic society would not likely put friends toward the center. Evan 9/21 

I was also struck by the friendship piece, which seems like a deeply cynical perspective on friendship that doesn’t seem like it’s necessarily based on a universal experience? There are also a lot of other writers who are far less cynical than epictetus about friendships, including fellow stoic Marcus Aurelius. His take on friendship is that friendship seems to be a form of immortality, as you can be remembered by another creature past your own death. This is interesting though, because it does seem to beat odds potentially with other stoic ideas about death. Hunter 9/21 

Hi class, quick comment from me today, just wondering what the stoics had to say about failure. Nick 9/21 

I have mentally revised my answer to the question of where desire comes from (and I hope we talk about that more in class!). On Thursday, I thought that desire can be both internal and external: internal for bodily desires, like sleep and food, and external for everything else. After thinking a bit more about it, I would say that all desires originate internally, but are almost always molded by external factors. Even something like sleep: I don’t go to bed around the same time every night because my body forces me to, but because I like waking up at the same time every day, I have commitments early in the morning, etc. -Katherine Holland 9/21 

Do stoics value family above others? Or is that an indifference, although they are technically “part” of the self? -Julia Gurzenda 9/21 

Good question Julia! From what I read the Stoic believes that we should always be trying to bring “outer circles” closer to ourselves. So they believe you should treat family as you would yourself, friends as you would family, a stranger as you would a friend, etc. From my understanding of that idea I guess I would say that yes stoics value family above others but in a more subconscious way as it has less to do with having the thought process of okay this is my family so they matter more than someone else and more to do with the fact that it does always come back to the stoics sense of self and how that group affects them and their path to virtue.   -Emily Maneri 9/21 

I was reading a few of the different stoicism readings to find more about the good and the bad for my presentation tomorrow. I read a lot from The Hellenistic Philosophers by Long and Sedley, and I realized that a lot of stoics have a type of opposing views when it comes to good and bad, and probably more opposing views on more topics. I thought it was interesting, because I thought stoicism was one thing all together, but of course people are going to have different viewpoints on it. That really opened my eyes to stoicism. Emily Scher 9/22 

One thing that really stuck with me from class on Tuesday was the “planning value”, and things preferred for the future(volition) and things dispreferred for the future(caution). The Stoic dan plan for good in their future, yet their present is indifferent. Once tomorrow comes, there is once again an indifference. This really stuck with me because many things in the present are out of our control, and need to be accepted as indifferent. However, we can utilize this “planning value” and plan for a future good. -Luke J 9/22 

I think the idea of oikeiosis is really interesting. When I think about expanding my circles of friends to treat others from outer circles more like they are part of the inner circle, I think about that as more of an expansion of myself rather than a change in the way I treat others. Expanding myself means being more honest about who I am and eliminating the various versions of myself that I might put on for others. For instance, I might be less likely to be vulnerable and say my honest opinion of a controversial topic around acquaintances. But if I were to really expand into my true self, I would not have to hide these opinions for fear of rejection. I wouldn’t have to conform as much to social norms in order to feel accepted by society (the outer circles of oikeoisis). My self-presentation becomes much more genuine and my attitude towards others opinions of me is much more of a “this is who I am take it or leave it.” This draws more like-minded people into my inner circle who may have otherwise stayed on the outskirts, but it also may drive away others who don’t match with my true self. Juliana 9/22 

It’s interesting to me to see this advocacy for a position I would call “Moral Realism,” or that ‘the good’ is a real thing that exists somewhere in the universe, or not, in the context of stoicism. In my metaethics class, that’s the only real question that we are asking all class. However, I feel like there are some problems with the ideal of good that they put forward. How exactly are we supposed to know what “the good” is? According to Epictetus, “the good demands power to deal with impressions” but also not all creatures are created equal in this regard because every animal needs to be able to deal with some impressions, but only humans seem to be ‘unlimited’ in this capacity, which is clearly ridiculous given how limited humans are. That seems to imply also that good means following ‘one’s nature’ whatever that is taken to mean. That only pushes this first objection though, of how we are supposed to know what these things are. If we could go against what is considered to be our nature, it’s not clear that that is actually what is natural for us. Hunter 9/23 

Tuesday’s discussion of a first/primary impulse was super interesting. I thought self-preservation was an especially good example, even with regards to how impulses can change over your lifetime. For most of our lives, our first impulse in a life-threatening situation is to save ourselves – and for some people, that never changes. When (most) people become parents, though, their sense of self-preservation changes. Their primary impulse is now to save their child, not themselves. I wonder if the Stoics would view this as rational. On one hand, not saving yourself means that you cannot continue to work toward your Stoic goal of living life rationally. On the other hand, your child has a longer lifetime ahead of them than you do, and they might be drawn toward Stoicism as well. Saving them would mean potentially allowing another Stoic to work towards their goals for a longer time than you could. (My guess is that both would be indifferents to the Stoics: it’s nice if you can save yourself or your child, but ultimately it doesn’t matter either way.) - Katherine Holland 9/23 

I wanted to take time with today’s post to speak on something I’ve been questioning independently since Tuesday, and that is the Stoic’s thought (and the sage’s response) to a ‘necessary evil’. Say a necessary evil is very temporal, or based in the current circumstance of a sage. How would this be interpreted as perhaps an impulse that is disselected when this belief cannot be on present things? While cliché and overused I’m curious how a Stoic sage would respond to the train dilemma and how this response does or does not become a hole in Stoic thought on the future presence of disselection and the general prohaeresis of the sage themself. Cal 9/23 

I have an affinity towards simplicity, especially when it concerns guiding principles.  How one can find security in a sea of terminology, vague guidelines, and exceptions is beyond me.  To combat uncertainty and paralysis, a remedy of simple, applicable logic should be used.  Is it more simple to know which path to take at the rotary circle where six roads meet, or does the fork in the trail provide more clear-cut options?  Personally, I prefer the latter.  I resonate with Marcus Aurelius’ call for us to “let thy principles be brief and fundamental, which, as soon as thou shalt recur to them, will be sufficient to cleanse the soul completely, and to send thee back free from all discontent with the things to which thou returnest”(Meditations IV).  Less is more, and recalling short and powerful principles is a simple task. (Charlie 9/23) 

That is a great point, Charlie. That point from Meditations is one that I enjoyed as well. Having simple guidelines to govern your life seems like a great way to stay true to them. The more convoluted the principles are, the harder they are to follow. While I think the Stoic philosophy can be confusing at times, the basic idea of pursuing virtue is very simple. Will 9/23 

I wish my understanding of Stoicism wasn’t so reliant on a belief in God. Given the inherent empiricism, modern Stoicism may have no place for God. Still, Aeralius seems to need God, and he explicitly states that God exists (IV, 11). It just seems to me like everything hinges on aligning yourself with God, and recognizing rationality as the link between yourself and the Divine. The gap that Hunter outlined in class between the ethical and the ontological (is this right? I don’t understand it well enough to recall and explain it clearly now) can only be bridged by faith. Maybe to buy into Stoicism absolutely you need a firm conviction in empiricism, and a firm conviction in faith. This seems to be impossible. -Jack 9/23 

I agree, Jack. The more I read on stoicism, the more divine notions seem to appear, which was not my initial take on stoicism. Most stoic ideologies, at first glance, seem to value the self much more than the connection with God. It seems to me as if you can still carry Stoic ideologies with you, without a faith in God. I feel as if it is more something you create within yourself, and not with a connection to a higher power. -Luke J 9/27 

I have been working on my paper for the good and the bad for this class. One thing I noticed when doing reading for my paper is that many stoics jump off of each other's ideas of “what is stoicism” and add more to it. For example, Diogenes Laertius said that good was natural. But Cicero added onto it and said that good happened naturally and there were different conceptions of good that would go along with nature. I think it is important that the stoics work together and think together and sue each other's ideas in order to come to a conclusion about stoicism. Emily Scher 9/27 

In my Gender, Sexuality, Women’s Studies class we read an article on paths of least resistance regarding racism that reminded me of Epictetus’ Chapter on being true to one’s character. The article talked about how, even though we believe ourselves to be individuals making our own decisions in life like what to eat for breakfast or what to wear or what job to take, we are really interacting with invisible social forces that shape which options are deemed socially acceptable. The author calls these ‘paths of least resistance.’ This is very applicable to the Stoics’ idea of keeping with one’s character or true nature, because often doing the right thing is not always seen as socially acceptable. In other words, we may encounter more resistance on these paths than if we go along with the rest of society. One example the author gave was if a man at his company was asked to lay off ten of his employees, even though this is something that may contradict with his character, he will do it anyway because this is the option where he will encounter less resistance (even though neither option is an easy one, both entail resistance). I think the Stoics would say that this man should stick to what he believes in and not lay off the workers even though he may lose his job for it. There are lots of other examples of this. It’s hard to do what’s right all the time. Sometimes it means being a whistle blower to injustice even if it will get you in trouble. I think the Stoics would say we must go against our socialization in these moments and make the right choice even if we may encounter more resistance alone the way. Juliana 9/27 

One factor of Stoicism that I have had an issue with is virtue paired with the Stoic idea of indifference. If Stoics defined virtue as excellence, I can’t see how you can be indifferent to things in life. If I strive for excellence, there are choices that I must make to be excellent. While I understand indifference is an idea that helps one handle life's greatest hardships, I have a tough time believing that you can be truly indifferent to things. If I want to be excellent, I must make choices that make my body and mind as good as possible. It takes calculated choices and discipline. I just can’t wrap my head around how you can avoid vice and pursuit virtue through pure indifference. Will 9/28 

In my initial research into the passions, I’ve found it quite interesting to contrast how uncontrollable passions are and how focused Stoic thought is towards centralizing the controlling of these intense and almost irrational impulses. While appetite, fear, distress, and pleasure are intense impulses made through the irrational reasoning faculty of your conscious, one that engages with both vice and virtue as they are two sides of the same coin, good can be made with all four of these through the feelings of joy, watchfulness, and wishing. I’ll have much more to say on Thursday but these are some of the initial thoughts I want to address. Cal 9/2 

In class on Tuesday, I wrote down something Jacques said, “Things themselves are indifferent, but the use of them is not indifferent.” I thought this idea is very interesting. Stoics seem to classify a lot of things as indifferent, so I understand why they would say that things or objects are indifferent. I think that saying a usage of objects not being indifferent is understandable. I know that objects and external factors can contribute to other things, such as virtues and vices, which are related to the good and the bad. Emily Scher 9/29 

I agree with Will, in that I cannot wrap my head around how Stoics can be virtuous by being indifferent to positive qualities, like integrity or selflessness. I wrote about this is my letters, in that I understand that being virtuous by definition of the Stoics is to not have attachment to outcomes, I don’t necessarily know if I agree with it. I don’t understand how striving to achieve something like anti-racism is indifferent if I applied this concept in my life. Don’t we want to strive to create social change? Why is that not virtuous in itself? Can one have the desire to create social justice without being attached to outcome? Beckett Medwid 9/30  

I wrote down the same thing, Emily. That sentence really resonated with me. I got something similar out of it, but also thought about things in our control vs things out of our control. The externals are indifferent, and we can’t control them. Yet, the way we view these externals is actually our internal, and this is what we can control. This is where our rationality is present in accordance with nature.  

I can’t help but wonder whether it’s possible that the stoics had a different idea of nature than the way we typically think of the word. When I think of the word “nature,” it’s easy to picture birds chirping outside, green trees, mountains...etc. Today we hold such a strong dichotomy between our human world and the natural world, but I think for the Greeks they felt much closer to nature. Many of their gods represent the power of natural forces around them that they had little control over. Because of this I think that modern humans view themselves more separately from nature than they truly are. We’ve carved out a separate realm in the world for ourselves, but is this really separate from nature? Or just a more manipulated form of it. I think for this reason, when the Stoics talk about "nature” and how we should not resist it, they mean anything that exists in the world around us. Accepting “nature” could just be another way to say accepting what is. Juliana 9/30 

Juliana, I agree with you. I’ve been taking “nature” to mean “that which is inherent” - we’ve said that things/people under optimal conditions are working according to their nature. Living according to our nature allows for true well-being; by definition, overstepping does not. I read William Cronon’s powerful essay “The Trouble with Wilderness” for another class, wherein he argues against the modern human construct of capital-N Nature. People, he says, view Nature as separate from themselves, as another to be protected. But we cannot separate ourselves from Nature any more than we can separate ourselves from breathing. Because we are living things, we are a part of the system of Nature. It is interesting to think about how Nature and our nature connect. -Katherine H 9/30 

I agree with Juliana that their idea of nature is different from ours. I think this is partly has to do with the fact that they lived literally closer to nature (our definition) than we do today. So the Stoics’ idea of a human-nature separation had to come from a deeper more complicated idea, vs how obvious the distinction is today. -Raphael 9/30 

I found it curious that Epictetus insists progress is not a measure of accomplishments, rather, it is an alliance? to one’s natural path.  Following a calling can be likened to an act in accordance with nature, meanwhile, straying from that objective in any way goes against the harmony of nature and erases the possibility of progress.  If an athlete dedicates the totality of his attention and effort towards running, Epictetus claims “he is the man who is indeed in the path of progress and who has not travelled to no purpose”, building off an earlier remark of his that “there is only one place to seek [progress]—where your work lies.”  It appears as if Epictetus’ definition of progress is the act of devoting oneself to being a master of their craft, all while pursuing no other external indifferents.  I align with the idea that one should apply all their effort when becoming involved with a particular pursuit - or not apply themselves to it at all.  Despite this, I find the stoic belief progress cannot be achieved when dedicating effort towards anything beyond your life’s work as stifling and limiting.  -Charlie 9/30 

Today I’m still considering what progress means to the Stoic, as we learned about in last class's presentation. I was alarmed at the fact that Stoics differentiate progress from result, for all my life I was taught that the final product is not the end goal, but the work up to it is what’s worthwhile. The thought that life is a marathon, not a sprint; that one’s success is determined by the summation of small and consistent efforts—progress—not to be confused with one big push. The metaphor our classmate used struck me to be in complete opposition to my concept of success. He said something along the lines of, “Imagine you’re 50 feet under water, fully engulfed. Though you manage to swim up 45 feet, and are then only five feet from the surface (above the surface referring to success or finding virtue), you are still under the entirety of the water which you are in.” To the Stoic progress is useless, but to me progress is the fruit of life. Furthermore, according to Plutarch, progress is imperceptible, and the Stoic is not aware of it until they attain virtue. This scares me, because I would not see the reason in pursuing my goals without experiencing progress as I go. If it were truly that stark, hard work would feel negligible, and life would be wholly less satisfying. What is the point of denying yourself the feeling of small accomplishments as you work toward a goal? I deny that progress is “imperceptible.” If it truly were, we wouldn’t see the work behind passing a bill, civil rights movements, personal growth whether physical or intellectual; to be honest, almost nothing would be achieved, because we would live without competition among others or against ourselves, and may esentially resort to living in a technologically desolate, socialist society. Natalie, 9/30.  

One of the big things that struck out to me as I read through the first parts of the Epictetus assigned for the week is the differentiations between action in which an irrational animal and a human decide to perform. For an animal there is an impression and an action made for this impression though for a human there is a justification needed to perform an action towards an impression which in effect forms your own judgement and individual and unique perceptions. Relating this to the concept of a divine being its interesting to see the Stoics grapple this concept of divinity as its not something necessarily discrete and provable as is their term for science, though at the same time this divine aspect granted humans the capability for rationality, so in effect is this explanation enough for the Stoic? How would this interpretation change say if a Stoic was brought into the modern day? Cal 10/4. 

Something that struck me from class on Thursday was the various forms of befitting actions and the concept of kathekon. Befitting actions were made a lot clearer to me when it was explained how physiological actions cannot be befitting, yet only things we decide can be befitting or not. I found the connection between impulses and befitting actions interesting, as it seems as if one assents to an impulse, the individual believes they are taking a befitting actions. Luke J 10/4 

In my interpretation of religion class, we were reading Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind. Freud discusses how when we are socialized as children, we must learn to suppress the primal desires of what he calls the Id. We must do this in order for society to function. The superego is our socialized reasoning which is what tries to control the Id, and the ego tries to mediate between these two. I wonder what the Stoics would have thought about Frued’s ideas, and how it fits into their argument that befitting actions can’t be physiological impulses. Maybe the Stoics would say that we should try to follow our superego as much as possible, except when it conflicts with our true nature which comes from the Id. Juliana 10/4 

I think it is an interesting viewpoint that that goodness is a steady state. It makes sense to me in terms of stoicism, because it aligns with my idea of stoicism and what I have learned in class. The idea of goodness being a steady state is leaning towards a view that people would not be tempted to do anything else besides good. Outside of stoicism, I believe that goodness can be subjective, varying from person to person. But this idea collaborates with stoicism, and having an objective, factual view of what good means. Emily Scher 10/5 

But is goodness a steady state? Or virtuism? Julia Gurzenda 10/5 

After class on Tuesday I had a conversation with Hunter and Jacques about how one argument for free will could be that the only thing I will ever experience is a product of my own mind. I tried to explain this by saying that I can never really trust whether any of my senses are true, they are just my mind’s way of giving me information. There’s really no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any physical reality. As you can imagine, a long conversation ensued about the futility of this sort of argument because then what’s the point of anything. And to be honest I didn’t have a great answer at the time. Now looking back I want to add that the point is that every thought we think is subjective. And I’ll never really know whether or not Jacques or Hunter understood what I was saying, and neither will they because we’ll never be in each other’s minds. I think it’s interesting that when we engage in these kind of philosophical debates to me I often feel like no one is understanding each other they’re just arguing but in reality that’s not true because there isn’t such a thing as disagreement. For both parties to engage in a philosophical debate, they have to already agree on a whole lot of things going into the discussion and to be able to listen to another person’s argument and comprehend is to agree with them in some way, because we can never get into another person’s mind. If we are able to understand something we have to understand how they could perceive it as true and therefore a piece of us also has to perceive it as true. So, in reality, we are always just “arguing,” “discussing,” “interacting,” with ourselves.