« first day (479 days earlier)      last day (2527 days later) » 

4:55 AM
 
 
2 hours later…
7:21 AM
@ktm5124 Is that a way of thinking you follow yourself?
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I just discovered it today, so I think I will have to let it sink in before I know for sure.
I really like what Nietzsche has to say about the idea. I paraphrase, "Not only should we bear what is necessary, still less conceal it, but rather, come to love it."
 
@ktm5124 Oh, I see! If you only discovered it today, I would be alarmed if you declared it your new life philosophy now.
@ktm5124 I see a problem: You can mistake something you can change for something you can't, and get too passive in your life, if you love your faith in a bad way.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I must admit I have not read Nietzsche, although this makes me want to read him. However, there is this paragraph on Wikipedia.
> This acceptance does not necessarily preclude an attempt at change or improvement, but rather, it can be seen to be along the lines of what Nietzsche means by the concept of "eternal recurrence": a sense of contentment with one's life and an acceptance of it, such that one could live exactly the same life, in all its minute details, over and over for all eternity.
I think one can both be active and accepting. For example, say one gets into a car accident. One has to accept the fact of the accident, but one could also go to physical therapy to help any injuries improve or heal.
Instead of cursing fate for weeks or months after the accident, better to say, "Amor Fati," and head straight to physical therapy :)
 
In that example there's a crucial difference: The car accident to be accepted has already happened. But the treatment or lack thereof is in the future.
I'm all for accepting past faith, but I see a large potential threat in accepting future faith.
Of course, it is possible to be both active and accepting. But combining the two does seem a little tricky to me.
 
7:37 AM
Oh, I see what you are saying. When I read it today, I interpreted it as accepting past events and situations.
@JoonasIlmavirta Is not all truth somewhere between the contrast of two ideas?
 
I'm no expert here, so I don't know what the philosophers intended. But the difference between past and future is significant.
 
Yeah. I haven't read enough about it yet, to know what position it takes on future events.
I find it interesting how popular the idea is. It was prevalent in classical antiquity, went away for a while after Christianity, and then reappeared over and over throughout the centuries, in both philosophy and literature.
 
@ktm5124 That might be a "continuous false dichotomy". If one only acknowledges two extreme cases and thinks everything must happen between them, one might miss some entirely different directions.
 
Right. I wouldn't want to set up a dichotomy that doesn't exist.
 
@ktm5124 Have the newer occurrences been inspired by the older ones, or have people just kept reinventing the wheel?
The idea sounds quite natural, so I wouldn't be surprised of several independent discoveries.
 
7:42 AM
I can only relate what I read from Wikipedia, and what I read from a famous novel.
But I think Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are two prominent philosophers who revisited the idea.
 
The best proof of independence would be finding the same thing in different cultures, I believe.
 
It also gained a lot of exposure from the famous novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
There is a related idea, called "eternal recurrence" or "eternal return", which goes hand in hand with amor fati.
The idea being, the test of true contentment is that you would be content to live your life over and over again, for the rest of eternity.
 
@ktm5124 Hmm... I'm not entirely sure what that means. If memories of past lives are carried over to a new one, the life does not feel the same and will turn out at least a little different because of the memories. If the memories are lost, there will be no feeling of recurrence.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I wouldn't assume your premise, though, that memories of a past life are carried over.
I conceive of it in two ways: first, as a thought experiment (without actually believing it to be true), and second, actually believing eternal recurrence to be true.
 
I was just trying to figure out what was meant.
The most sensible interpretation now seems to be this: Your life is repeated over and over identically, without any past memories or similar. Would you be happy with that thought as your present self now?
 
7:53 AM
Yeah, that's my understanding :) But we might have to consult a philosopher!
May I be direct and ask you your answer to that question?
 
Oh yes, that would be useful.
 
I will give you mine... but first I will have to think about it!
 
:o conloqvivm vivvm est
 
@ktm5124 I haven't thought this through very carefully, but my first feeling is this: Having the same thing repeated over and over does not change the way I would see my life at all. If there are no shared memories, the different lives are effectively lived by different people, not by me.
@LeakyNun Ita quoque quandoquidem fieri potest. :)
 
Thus also seeing that it can be done?
 
7:58 AM
@ktm5124 More importantly, I see no reason to believe in such recurrence. The argument "with infinite time and a finite number of events, events will recur again and again infinitely" does not convince me at all.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I think the idea, perhaps even to the ancients from antiquity, was of time being a circle as opposed to a line. But I do agree there is no reason to believe it. Only to wonder.
So far, I think of it as a thought experiment — an interesting one.
What if time were cyclical? Would I view the events of my life any differently?
 
@ktm5124 Oh yes, that is a reasonable question.
But as I mentioned, the hypothetical temporal cyclicity does not seem to have an effect on my views.
 
I see.
It would be interesting to know how prevalent this idea was — e.g., was the educated elite of the Roman republic exposed to it? the way they were to Stoicism?
I wonder, even, whether that would be an acceptable question here! :)
 
@JoonasIlmavirta So it is since it can be done?
 
Was amor fati taught in schools during the Roman republic?
 
8:05 AM
I don't know why my message got timeout.
 
@ktm5124 An ad hoc theory: If time is a line, you can never draw all of it. The line is infinitely long and one has to imagine what is left undrawn. It may feel like a very theoretical construction. However, if time is a circle, you can draw all of it, and the visual situation is much more pleasing. This might be a reason to like cyclic time.
 
If time were a circle, then everything in the future would have already happened.
 
@ktm5124 I think it would, if you ask for mentions of such things in literature to keep it on-topic.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta That's interesting. Thanks for sharing.
 
And if you don't ask it over and over cyclically. ;)
 
8:06 AM
Hahaha.
Was eternal recurrence taught in Roman schools?
 
@LeakyNun I meant "It too can sometimes happen".
 
Was eternal recurrence taught in Roman schools? ...
and so on.
 
@ktm5124 Eventually a question ban would kick in and break your loop.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta I wonder if the universe has such a mechanism.
 
@LeakyNun Yes, that is an inevitable consequence of cyclic time. But if the cycle is long enough, the practical meaning gets diluted.
 
8:09 AM
Ah. Is fieri potest an idiomatic way of saying "can happen"?
 
@ktm5124 If you accept that the SE network is all there is to the universe, then yes.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta so does its significance.
 
@ktm5124 Indeed.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Good to know.
 
@LeakyNun Precisely. It cannot be very short term because we don't see it in action. If it really is cyclic, the cycle is so long that it makes little difference.
 
8:10 AM
@JoonasIlmavirta If so, why talk?
 
@LeakyNun He started it! :P points finger at @ktm5124
@LeakyNun More seriously, a cyclic time with a long cycle might have an effect on the some people's thinking. Anything you do, you do infinitely many times. The different times don't really interact since they are far apart, but still whatever happens, will happen over and over again.
Personally, I find the hypothetical situation irrelevant, but I can see why some might see some relevance in it.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta you just do it one time, just that time goes in a loop.
 
@LeakyNun That's one way of looking at it, and I find it a good one. I wonder if people want to make a distinction between time on a circle and periodic time on a line.
For the topologically oriented, that's more or less the difference between the circle and its universal cover.
 
Oh I just realized that you have a mathematical background
Then it makes things easier.
I view it as maybe $\Bbb R/k\Bbb Z$.
 
@LeakyNun And foreground, too. :)
 
8:18 AM
there is only one element, although it is an equivalence class containing countably many elements.
I tend to focus on the fact that it is one element.
 
That's how C.S. Lewis describes God seeing time.
 
@LeakyNun Now I wonder if this philosophical thingy would make a good example for the difference between equivalence classes and the underlying space.
 
And many other Christians.
 
Oh God what did I write, I just divided by $\Bbb R$
 
@LeakyNun For large $k$, I assume.
 
8:19 AM
@JoonasIlmavirta sure
 
@LeakyNun Well, I did read your intention correctly.
Seeing through miscalculations is what I do for a living.
 
@ktm5124 I see no reason to believe anything he says.
 
@LeakyNun That is the very foundation of faith :)
 
Nor is there a sound reason to believe anything I say.
 
I see faith and reason as two different dimensions.
Although, to be fair, C.S. Lewis uses reason to argue faith.
 
8:22 AM
@ktm5124 faulty reasons
 
Not quite.
It was enough to convince Francis Collins, director of the NIH.
 
@ktm5124 If both exist, they will interact. I don't see how one might keep them separate.
@MickG Hello!
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Separate in the way that time and space are separate.
 
@ktm5124 I don't see how that matters.
 
There is a very good conversation on this subject that is freely accessible at the PBS website. pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/index.html.
 
8:24 AM
@ktm5124 except that they are not.
 
They are separate dimensions. This sentence is true.
 
In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses three-dimensional space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur. Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its description in terms of locations, shapes, distances, and directions) was distinct from time (the measurement of when events occur within the universe). However, Albert Einstein...
@ktm5124 I thought we are talking about faith vs. reason. I don't expect a link to "question of God".
 
We are separate people and yet we are interacting right now.
I think this is based on assumptions about the definition of separate, which we have not defined.
 
@ktm5124 Yes, that's true within special relativity, which is extremely accurate for everyday purposes. While it's technically false in general relativity and our physical world, it doesn't make it a bad model or way of thinking.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Ah, that's interesting. I didn't know that.
 
8:28 AM
And even in general relativity, there is a meaningful (although somewhat non-unique) way to identify space and time locally. In a certain sense space and time have global meanings, and they are complementary in way similar to SR.
 
I am somewhat familiar with Einstein's theory: as matter approaches the speed of light, time slows down, among other things.
 
@ktm5124 relatively.
 
Right, relatively.
 
@ktm5124 Time slows down as observed by an outsider. The person travelling near speed of light will experience nothing unusual.
 
it's somewhat the keyword of the whole theory.
 
8:29 AM
People in a spaceship approaching the speed of light will have a different idea of how much time has elapsed than people back on earth.
 
and you can't "approach" the speed of light. It is constant in every viewframe.
 
@LeakyNun In a certain sense you can. Never in your own restframe, but in another frame of reference you can.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Right. I did not express that clearly at all, although I understand that.
 
According to observations by @ktm5124 I can approach the speed of light.
@ktm5124 It takes time to learn to express things clearly in relativity, and I don't claim I master it. The most important thing to keep in mind is that you always need to record who observes the thing, not only the thing itself.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Thanks, that is a useful tip.
 
8:33 AM
@Joonas Ave! So much acfivity during the night over here :)!
 
And how is mass affected? I seem to remember that mass gets really big.
But would that only be to an outside observer? This is the part that stumps me.
 
Hmm... Come to think of it, that's also true in the Galilean realm. You can never approach infinite speed in your own restframe where your velocity is zero, but you can do so in another frame.
 
Because, to my mind, mass is not relative.
 
@MickG There is an occasional burst of activity. :)
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Eternal recurrence, that is.
 
8:36 AM
@ktm5124 There are different schools of thought about mass in relativity. It's partially a matter of definition. I'd say a mass is invariant (always the same), but from a certain point of view the apparent mass can change.
@ktm5124 Although we're mostly not discussing the same things over and over again.
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Aw shucks, you are right.
 
Anyways I guess at the moment the site where I'm possibly more likely to be answered (but lack of data reigns :) ) is here, so for the first few future questions I will start from here. As for those left at Lit, I will cross-post on Tue so that a week has past since posting at Lit.
 
@MickG Sounds good to me!
 
@JoonasIlmavirta Let's say an object approaches the speed of light from planet earth's point of view. Would its mass change? Or remain invariant? For some reason, I seem to remember mass being affected.
 
And if I don't get answers, well, I'll post to my blog without the extra info :).
 
8:38 AM
And I do hope you get your answers. I don't know enough of the subject to be able to judge whether an answer is out there.
@ktm5124 Depends on what you mean by mass, frankly.
Defining mass is delicate and crucial, but most popular accounts say nothing on it.
 
I also have a question which arose from Hector and Andromacha (cfr post on Lit), which is not about Sappho but more about P.Oxy., and it is: Why are P.Oxy.s numbered as they are, and more specifically, why are the three scraps of P.Oxy. 1232 under the same number? Where could I ask it? Would it be fine over here?
 
I couldn't access this chatroom since it was down... have you guys experienced no problem?
@ktm5124 Relativistic mass is an idea abandoned by physicists.
Now we just use rest mass.
 
@MickG Yes, it's fine at our site. In fact, I think we have a tag for corpus questions.
@LeakyNun I had no problem.
@LeakyNun True. The relativistic mass has its uses, but the rest mass is the best way to go. Not least because it's a scalar quantity.
 
@LeakyNun I see.
 
The relativistic mass is nothing but the energy (temporal component of four-momentum), so having a separate word would be confusing.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that $E=mc^2$ is false if the object is in motion and $m$ is the rest mass.
 
8:57 AM
Huh! Time to fall asleep. It is far too late.
Valete, omnes!
 
@ktm5124 bonas noctes
 
9:15 AM
@Cerberus Seeing how we just had a long conversation about it in this chat room, I'm curious to know if you ever ran across the idea of amor fati in your philosophy readings? and if so, what you think about it? Well, I am truly off now. Bonam noctem!
 
@ktm5124 why the singular?
or, why does Spanish use the plural?
I know it's also singular in French (and possibly Italian)
 
@ktm5124 Bene dormito!
@LeakyNun The singular sounds more natural to me. After all, it's only one night.
But admittedly, you can use either singular or plural in Finnish. The plural version feels like a "diminutive" of the singular one for some reason.
 
 
1 hour later…
10:23 AM
Any tag suggestions for this: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/4580/…?
 
 
5 hours later…
2:54 PM
@JoonasIlmavirta I think the question is fine, I'm afraid I don't have much knowledge specific to Sapphic Greek, certainly less than @MickG does!
@ktm5124 This is the Stoic notion, isn't it?
So I would think of the Stoics primarily?
You can find such ideas in almost all Stoic authors, I should imagine.
Somewhat similar notions can also be found in Epicurianism.
In a way, it is even an almost universal notion.
It could be argued that it is the opposite of modernism.
@MickG Hmm I've always wondered about the various numberings of such collections of fragments.
I don't think we have many such questions yet, if any.
Maybe something about edition or collection? Fragment? Papyrus?
Numbering system?
I don't know what would be appropriate/useful tags; I don't make use of tags myself.
 
 
2 hours later…
5:23 PM
@Cerberus do you know of any user with that specific knowledge? Could you ping them?
 
@MickG Oh, I really wouldn't know. I don't think we have had anyone post an answer regarding Sappho or a similar topic?
I know TKR knows a lot about Greek, but I have no idea about his Sapphic experience.
Not to mention Lesbian.
But I'm sure he will see any question you post on the site, for he is usually quite active.
 
6:03 PM
@MickG I wouldn't usually ping people to make sure they see a question. A rare ping is fine, but leave people room to use the site on their own terms.
But mentioning someone that we have the first Sappho questions here is perfectly fine if you think they might be interested or capable of answering.
@MickG You now have a tag for corpus and papyrus. Adding one for fragment (as @Cerberus suggests) or a relevant language would be fine. Or you could create a tag for the specific corpus if you think there could be more questions related to it.
 
6:30 PM
@Cerberus ...where Lesbian means essentially the same as Aeolian, in case anyone's first impression was rude.
People in this chat room probably know better, but elsewhere "Aeolian experience" is far less likely to get flagged than the alternative.
 
6:55 PM
@Joonas I meant ping them in this chat room to hear if he could answer those questions. But I have the impression he is aware of this discussion. I seem to remember him being one of the first to reply me here.
 
7:07 PM
Aaaand nope :). It's weird how TKR sounds familiar and yet I haven't had any recent interaction with them on Latin...
 
 
3 hours later…
9:40 PM
@Cerberus Yes! The Wikipedia page says the concept is linked with the writings of Epictetus and Aurelius, neither of which I have read: a fact that should be remedied.
@Cerberus I think so. It recurs long after Stoicism in the thought of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, and I'm sure there are related ideas in different times and cultures.
 
@ktm5124 To find the most relevant passages to get started, you can ask a question.
I haven't had the time to do any serious reading in Latin for years.
 
@Cerberus I would be curious to know what you mean by this. Is it that we have lost the belief or zeitgeist that fate is out of our control?
@JoonasIlmavirta Yeah, that's a good idea. I don't have the time for serious reading of that sort myself right now, but when I do I will keep this in mind.
 
@ktm5124 Having immediately the time to act on a possible answer is not a requirement for asking.
But I do understand wanting to postpone.
 

« first day (479 days earlier)      last day (2527 days later) »