Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Making Epistemology Cool Again (Episode 160)
550 Plays13 days ago
Caleb and Michael discuss Stoic epistemology—how to think well, avoid ignorance, and form justified beliefs. They explore the importance of skepticism, setting realistic standards for truth, and cultivating expertise to navigate complex decisions.
(00:00) Common Sense
(04:54) Default To Skepticism
(09:38) Criterion of Truth
(18:31) Common Sense
(29:10) Building Confidence Through Expertise
(35:01) Epistemic Reserve Clause
(42:27) Takeaways
***
Subscribe to The Stoa Letter for weekly meditations, actions, and links to the best Stoic resources: www.stoaletter.com/subscribe
Download the Stoa app (it’s a free download): https://stoameditation.com/pod
If you try the Stoa app and find it useful, but truly cannot afford it, email us and we'll set you up with a free account.
Listen to more episodes and learn more here: https://stoameditation.com/blog/stoa-conversations/
Thanks to Michael Levy for graciously letting us use his music in the conversations: https://ancientlyre.com/
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to Stoic Applied Epistemology
00:00:00
Speaker
Welcome to Stoa Conversations. My name is Caleb Ontiveros. And I'm Michael Trombley. And today we're going to be talking about really applied epistemology, Stoic applied epistemology. So I think of it in terms of strategies or heuristics the Stoics have for thinking well, for forming beliefs that are ah justified.
00:00:31
Speaker
And thinking about that, uh, I think yeah I suppose the, the outcome is you want to justify beliefs, but what Stoics are always about to like many other ancient philosophers is character. So the question is, you know, how can you have the epistemic character, the kind of character where you're a thoughtful person in the best sense?
Significance of Epistemology in Forming Beliefs
00:00:54
Speaker
Yeah, I think that's the right way to think about it. What I wanted to do with this episode is make epistemology cool again, because we we so often... i We often talk about epistemology as like this... I know what I talk about with non-philosophers. They're like, what does that even mean? And it's like, well, it's something we do all the time, right? It's ah it's how we form beliefs. It's how we come to base what we think is true. It's the it's the justification for claiming you have knowledge about something.
00:01:21
Speaker
thats That's epistemology. And ah so often when you hear about epistemology in a philosophical context, you think about it in terms of like Descartes' Evil Demon or The Matrix. How how do we even know the world is real? How do I know I even exist? These kind of foundational questions. And those were things that interested ancient philosophers. that's Those are the kinds of questions that the skeptics and the stoics argued about.
Moral Failings from Epistemological Errors
00:01:48
Speaker
But once you kind of move past those, there's this really interesting applied level of epistemology, as you said, the heuristics and tools for thinking the right kinds of things. And then when you apply that to yourself, how do I become the kind of person that tends to think accurately in situations that is not often misled, that doesn't jump to conclusions, that isn't easily ah persuaded by people telling ah false stories or lies. And that's a really important thing for how we live. It's one of the most important things, much more much more important, I would say, than um you know those those foundational questions if we even exist or something once we move past those.
00:02:31
Speaker
Um, the other reason the stoics really care about epistemology is that virtue is knowledge, as we talk about a lot on this podcast for the stoics, that idea that, you know, it's, it's a virtue ethic and it's about being a certain kind of person, but, um, you become, uh, a great person by improving your understanding of the world, by improving improving your understanding of ah how you should treat other people.
00:03:00
Speaker
what's worth caring about, nothing not caring about what's worth being angry about or sad about or not. And so um you know this is not a this is not a worldview where you can be ignorant, but still excellent. You have to you have to be
Epistemology's Role in Ethics
00:03:18
Speaker
knowledgeable. And so having a really strong heuristic or ah epistemology practice is is Crucial for that call and you know, so just that like like just a really simple example, you know, if somebody tells you a Rumor or a lie and you get angry at somebody
00:03:34
Speaker
and you you know punish that person. And you'd be you'd be right to punish them if they actually did this terrible thing, but they didn't do the terrible thing. And so in that case, your epistemology failing becomes really a moral failing. And that's the connection I i want to make is you know we're not just talking about um some sort of abstract application. When we talk about epistemology, we're talking about how we make the decisions to punish people, to get mad, to you know treat treat others certain ways. This this is like directly tied into our ethical lives.
00:04:04
Speaker
And so that's why I think that's why I wanted to
Stoic Logic and Argumentation
00:04:06
Speaker
focus on it. I think it's important. Yeah, absolutely. I agree with that. If you think about the different domains of philosophy for the Stoics, you have the physics, the ethics, and the logic. And it's that last aspect logic that we'll be on talking about here. And always different cuts are different aspects to logic, of course. There's sort of the formal practice in terms of you know specifying valid and sound arguments and such, understanding logical structure.
00:04:38
Speaker
But there's also sort of the practical so ah matter of, yeah how do you think well day to day? And that's what we're going to be diving in. that's You put some notes on on that ah very issue ah for us today.
00:04:53
Speaker
Yeah. Um, and then the way I'll be structuring this, I'm going to go through five lessons from stoichi epistemology and then ground them in, I would say a day to day life. So we're going to go through, and this is something that applies to that brain in a VAT situation, to that, um, you know, am I in the matrix kind of context, but I'm also going to apply it to our day to day.
00:05:17
Speaker
So ah first lesson from the Stoics, from Stoic epistemology, is what I call it to default to skepticism. And so this is something Caleb we've talked about in the past, but the Stoics say that we should always default to a skeptical position. And what I mean by that is that we should always withhold judgment.
00:05:38
Speaker
until we have a good reason for believing something. So we need to be very careful about what we give our assent to, very careful about what we believe to be true, um almost ascribe a kind of defensive position.
00:05:53
Speaker
The idea is that the first step to knowledge is not to be tricked. The first step to knowledge is not to be ignorant. I think this goes back to this Socratic idea of so Socrates would brag that, you know, at least he knows that he knows nothing. That's why he's smarter than other people, where they are ignorant, but they they're not aware of their ignorance. And that's something the Stoics carry with them.
00:06:15
Speaker
that that default of skepticism all the time. And you know we' we've we've talked about some exercises to this, like um Marcus Aurelius has a line about you know you don't have to have an opinion. Epictetus talks about critical ascent, which is this idea of always making sure you evaluate your first impressions of things and never accept any of them without testing them. He uses the metaphor of like biting into coins, like make sure none of these coins are counterfeit before you accept them for payment. And so that's that that's that first stoic ideas. We're just as a stoic, if you want to be sto like a stoic in terms of your epistemology, you need to default to
Criteria of Truth in Stoicism
00:06:55
Speaker
skepticism. You play defensive. You never assent without a good reason to. You never form a belief without a good reason to form a belief.
00:07:04
Speaker
Yeah, I think that's key. and i I like how in the Meditations, Marcus Aurelius, that first book in book one, he mentioned several people ah who he admires for, I think, defaulting to skepticism. There's his adopted father.
00:07:24
Speaker
He mentions that he admires the searching questions at meetings, a kind of single-mindedness almost never content with first impressions or breaking off the discussion prematurely. and Then he also mentions sextus to investigate and analyze with understanding and logic the principles we ought to live by.
00:07:48
Speaker
And I think that's those two actions, investigation, asking, searching questions, are sort of two ways skepticism manifests itself. you know what And um maybe a useful prompt for how one can show skepticism is of course not immediately a centi, not immediately a green.
00:08:12
Speaker
with one's first reaction, but taking that extra step to investigate, ask why, ah and ask you know detailed questions of of of your experience. Yeah, I think that's a great point. So we're not advocating here for kind of like like hands over your ears, like, nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening or I don't believe you. you know But like, okay, I hear what you're saying.
00:08:36
Speaker
ah Why should I believe that? what reason do you have what What reason do you have for thinking that? And will that reason persuade me as well? And that's much more compelling kind of picture than the person who's like, I don't believe anything. you know like Nobody can pull the wool over my eyes because you know that's one thing. And this connects to to my next point. But the the Stoics differ from the skeptics.
00:09:02
Speaker
which were another ancient school of thought, because they thought we could believe things. They thought we could leave skepticism. You default to skepticism, um but then you leave it. Like the same way, you know, if you meet a new person, maybe you default to being kind and open-minded and interested in them, and then you form an opinion, and then you either become their friend or you rightly exclude them from friendship. We can move from this initial position.
00:09:27
Speaker
um And so i think that's I think that's a great point about we we want to start in skepticism, but we want to figure out a way to move out of it. um And the the the way the Stoics, this connects to my to my second lesson, which was the way the Stoics moved out of skepticism is this thing called a criterion of truth.
00:09:51
Speaker
And this is something that was really popular in ancient philosophy. We don't really talk like this anymore. i When I started reading this, I was like, what's a criterion of truth? What are these people talking about? um But they all yet the Epicureans, the skeptics, the Stoics, they all argued about this. It was something they all had in common. And basically, the criterion of truth is um It's the thing or multiple things, but the the thing that justifies believing something to be true. It's the test that something has to pass or the criteria it must possess before you can rightly believe it. It's the justification.
Expertise and Perception of Truth
00:10:26
Speaker
ah So if if something has this or passes this test, then you weren't wrong for believing it. You had a good reason to do so.
00:10:35
Speaker
um And the the the lesson here I think is just to think about that idea because that's not an idea. i'll get I'll get to what the Stoics thought the criterion of truth was, but I think that's just an interesting idea is to have an established standard by which you evaluate things.
00:10:54
Speaker
Um, and so maybe, you know, maybe this is not believing anything until a news source reports it. Maybe it's needing a trusted friend to tell you these, maybe, maybe it's something else, but it's the idea about like having this, having this standard that sits outside of the context that you bring into any context.
00:11:13
Speaker
What's really interesting about having a defined standard, the reason I think it's important is that it ensures that our deliberation is fair and we don't succumb to confirmation bias. So a criterion of truth, if properly used, it should force us to believe things we don't want to believe. We don't have any, it should maybe, it should stop us from believing things we want to believe that are false. So stop us from taking in things that make us feel good.
00:11:40
Speaker
but it should also maybe force us to believe things that make us feel bad, force us to come to ah reckon with truths that we otherwise are resistant of. um And I thought about this kind of test. This is something that I do that i use all the time, but I thought of this test ah for if you have a good criterion of truth, which is if someone at a bar tells you something and you think it's ridiculous, it goes against your worldview, it would make someone you care about look bad or make yourself look bad, then the question is what what would make you believe them? What would make you accept this idea? And that's your criterion of truth, or at's at least one of your criteria of truth.
00:12:19
Speaker
um And that's, I think, such a powerful idea that we've kind of lost today is having a really solid standard that we're consistent with. um What do you think about the criterion of truth? Yeah, I think it's an important idea. It it raises the question of what you of of your example, which is, I think it is useful to think about if you have a given position, something seems to you to be the case, what evidence would convince you otherwise?
00:12:48
Speaker
how would the world look different if your opinion was mistaken. And I think that that that exercise can be useful both if you're thinking about um a matter by yourself also when
Revisable Beliefs and Openness to Evidence
00:13:04
Speaker
you're you know discussing things with others trying to get a sense of you know what is that maybe shared proposition between the two of you, which if you had an established answer about that idea,
00:13:18
Speaker
you know, it would, uh, settle the dispute. So, you know, a simple example of, of this would just be something, you know, use you're debating over the color of some characters eyes or something like this. And then you just someone, you could solve that dispute by showing, sharing a photo very easy, uh, of that person. Um, but then like, what's the equivalent, I suppose, for so, so, so many other questions we're interested in investigating or disputing.
00:13:45
Speaker
Yeah. And it's a good question, right? Like it's not, I mean, the stoics are going to have an answer, but it, I think one thing that you raise, I mean, the stoics are going to talk about this specifically in terms of like sense impressions in terms of, I mean, you raised a good example of like, what is, what color is our, maybe not this character, but what color is our friend's eyes? And you go over and look at their eyes and you go, okay, we can, we know they're Brown, but it raises this different, you know, is the, is your criterion of truth for,
00:14:14
Speaker
ah a fact of history? you know Is that just Wikipedia? But what about some more political politically complicated thing? Or what about um some science fact? i think about One thing that I try to do a lot is I try to say, well, what do the experts say?
00:14:32
Speaker
And then I try to revise my beliefs to fit what the experts say, um even if I just to try to do that consistently, even if I agree with it. Obviously, there's like some debate about who's an expert and how much pieces of information do you know need before you know what what the experts say. This idea that I'm not in a rent controlled place would be nice to have rent control. That would be nice. But somebody maybe raises the the economic argument that rent control is bad.
00:15:02
Speaker
um large scale and I need to accept that it's true if that's kind of the general state of ah economic thinking even if it's bad for me personally that's something that I just try to do a lot I try to revise my thinking to fit those with expertise that's not easy and it's like it's there's some ambiguity and But it's I think that's important because otherwise you just end up you know believing the the the things that you want to believe and rejecting the things you don't want to believe. And then I don't think that's a good way to live. Right, right. And and I suppose what what criteria of truth give you is some rule or ah rules or principles that are fixed and that you can test the application of over time.
00:15:54
Speaker
Uh, I suppose, so that's, that's how they would combat. Uh, if they're applied well, they would combat things like confirmation bias and such, because you can notice how you apply a given role through different cases and apply it, uh, consistent consistently. Yeah, you'd have to apply it consistently. You can't pull out the easy criteria for things you like and the hard criteria for things you don't, it would would be apple. It would be consistent application.
00:16:23
Speaker
Yeah, so that's ah anything else on that idea, just like having a criterion of truth, having something that you consistently use to judge whether or not you should believe something. and and Anything else on that? Well, I think it's important. At the same time, it can be difficult to specify what the criteria are. And that's that's worth acknowledging. And it's also worth acknowledging that there are sort of different levels of abstraction, which you can take the question, you know, is my criteria of truth for a specific issue, like the color of my friend's eyes, you can think about what would settle that debate ah in terms of a photo, visual experience or something of this sort. um But you can also get more abstract, more philosophical, of course, with a question, you know, I only accept evidence if it is empirical or something like that, or I only accept evidence if it's produced by a reliable process and then having some account of
00:17:21
Speaker
the what those processes are in the world. So I think it's shouldn't we shouldn't understate how difficult it is to come up with a proper criterion and then apply it across many different domains.
00:17:32
Speaker
Yeah, I think it's like a craft like anything else that you develop in time. It's just something that most people aren't practicing because I don't think this is necessarily how we talk about it anymore. Or if they are practicing it, they're not using this ancient language, which is fine. sure can Don't expect them to. Why can't we talk about it the way the Stoics do? um But you you've got to you got you've got to start. And I think anybody Anybody is, or everybody's already doing this in some way, so it's first to understand how you're doing it, how you're doing it inconsistently, you know and which of those you want to keep and make consistent, and which of those you will admit, ah, you know i'm kind of I'm kind of keeping it a low standard. If it's a if it's if someone gives me a compliment, you know are you as critical and examining of them as if they give you an insult? And probably not, right? You're probably much quicker to accept the compliment than the insult.
00:18:25
Speaker
And so that's an example of how we switch between our criteria pretty consistently. Next, moving to lesson three. So start with skepticism. We get out of skepticism by having a criterion of truth.
00:18:40
Speaker
And now, how do we actually pick that criterion of truth? Well, I think the stoic lesson here is to be actually pretty common sense. And it's kind of a rejection of the skeptic opinion, which is that we never really can get one. That's the that's the main skeptic argument is nothing's ever good enough. If your friend walks in and you see their brown eyes, how can you even trust your sense impression? How do you even know they exist? How do you even know you exist?
00:19:04
Speaker
That's the skeptic line. And the Stoics are going to kind of scoff at this and be like, that's a bit ridiculous. We need to just be common sense about it. And the way they're going to get around it specifically with sense impressions, and I want to abstract this out because we don't really worry too much about sense impressions nowadays. But the way they get around with sense impressions is their criterion of truth is what's called a cognitive impression. And it's a cataleptic impression in Greek.
00:19:31
Speaker
um but And that's an impression that accurately represents its object in a way that a fake object could not. So it's something that that has such a degree of clarity and specificity that you couldn't be mistaken.
00:19:48
Speaker
Um, and so an example of that is if you're driving and you see a cow a few miles up the road, that's not a cognitive impression. You know, that could be ah a colored boulder. That could be a sign that could be, um, I think about this when I drive in Canada, sometimes people have these like fake deer in their lawn. Um, I don't know. I don't know if you have that where where you live, Caleb.
00:20:09
Speaker
And I'll be driving at night and my lights will hit in and I'll go, ah! And I'll get all scared that this deer is on the side of the road and gonna run out and then I'll go, oh, okay, it's just a fake deer. That's good. I wish you didn't put that there. That's an example of right of of not a cataleptic impression. It's something you're not sure what it is. Is it is it is it a deer? Is it not a deer?
00:20:27
Speaker
um But then you know if I pulled over, I got out. i ah Using the cow example, I saw the cow. It was a real cow. I petted the cow, smelt the cow, looked the cow in the eyes. The stokes would say, that that's a cataleptic impression. That's a cognitive impression of a cow. That's not overcomplicate things.
00:20:46
Speaker
you're clearly seen one you know when i get out and i touch the the fake deer stand by the fake deer so and i see that it's made of wood it's not a deer i can be pretty confident of that and i don't want to make this about
Aligning Beliefs with Truth for a Fulfilling Life
00:21:00
Speaker
whether or not the stoics defeat skepticism we've talked about these kinds of things before But the point here, I think the stoic point is that, look, you your criteria should follow common sense. that it It doesn't have to be some impossible bar to clear. Knowledge doesn't, or at least catalepsis doesn't have to be this kind of hidden thing. You know, when when we're um more petting a cow or you're looking yourre you're looking at your friend's eyes or your photo of a friend on Facebook,
00:21:26
Speaker
and you're seeing the color of their eyes, you don't have to ask if you're a brain in a jar, if you're plugged into some simulation, if you're part of the matrix. um you can just You just know that that's true. um That might not be satisfying to some people, but but I think there is a lesson here about, look, at if this heuristic is going to work, it has to be something that things can reasonably clear. It has to be a bar that is both um high enough to instill confidence that you can act on your knowledge with confidence or your belief with confidence, but low enough that you can actually incorporate enough things to go about interacting with the world coherently. And so finding this finding a criterion that is just, it's common sense, it's around the middle, maybe it's upper middle, but it's not it's not impossible and it's not on the ground. That's the that's the third stoic insight from their epistemology.
00:22:21
Speaker
I suppose this brings out the question, you how do you determine what's common sense? Do you have any thoughts on that or how the Stoics went about that question? Yeah, i mean I mean, so the stoic line on sense impressions is that is kind of unsatisfying, right? The stoic line on sense impressions is that God has constructed us in a way to not be deceived. ah So God has given us the mental capacity to correctly differentiate between
00:22:55
Speaker
a cow and a fake cow, basically saying that like a kind of matrix-like imitation cow would be impossible. God wouldn't construct a universe where that's possible, and human so humans just have a capacity that we sit and think about something carefully enough. We can tell the difference. um They also thought that... ah Here's another interesting idea. this They also thought that cataleptic impressions had a kind of motivational force.
00:23:22
Speaker
So you didn't you you actually had to kind of fight not to believe them because they're so obviously true. um Epictetus raises this funny example where he says, you know, you're a skeptic, but if I threw this, you know, if I threw this pan at your head, you duck, right? And his point would be like, you're receiving a cataleptic impression of something coming towards your face and you want to get out of the way.
00:23:45
Speaker
So there there is also this this idea of not fighting something that has a motivational force, but ah but that really comes down to this idea that we can trust our instincts, trust our nature um in a way that i mean maybe is counterintuitive to the skepticism. But I guess the opinion is that the stoic view is that our nature, if we are mindful,
00:24:06
Speaker
and intentional has the ability to to tell the difference between what's true and false. But if we're sloppy, and and un unintentional, not mindful, then we'll get it wrong. But if we just, if we plug in, we we have the skills to tell the difference or the skills to know when we don't have enough information. So that's kind of, uh, that's, that's why I've always found it a bit unsatisfying, but but what do you think?
00:24:34
Speaker
Well, I suppose I was wondering what, you know, what's the stoic account of common sense? And by that, I mean, how do you know whether a given tactic or something like that is common sense? So if you're thinking about the rent control type problem, how do you apply common sense to that discussion or how do you apply?
00:24:58
Speaker
common sense to thinking through a career decision or something of that sort. I think, you know, maybe we have an idea that common sense. I think yeah that includes maybe some amount of knowledge is passed through tradition or generations to some extent, and involve some of what you said, just now in terms of like paying attention to what's in front of you, not obscuring your vision or coming up with the theories of what's happening that have nothing to do with reality, has you know the sense of being concrete and such.
00:25:35
Speaker
um but But I guess you know what what is what ah exactly is common sense, I suppose, was was the question. There are a few different ingredients to it. Yeah, I mean, i've and I introduced that term. So maybe that's maybe I'm muddling the conversation a bit. I meant it more as a contrast to the kind of skeptic extreme position. Gotcha. But like that phrase common sense aside, I think the idea here would be, well, we could just sit down and write on a piece of paper pretty quickly. OK, so the the rank control example, well,
00:26:09
Speaker
We should probably trust expertise. We should probably not trust things that just happen to us because things that just happen to us are not generalizable to a large scale. We should look at different sources of information. We should consider people that disagree before coming to a conclusion. um I think these kinds of, you know, it would be ah it would be a rule like this Um, pretty kind of reasonable positions. It's not something like only one person can tell you, or only you can tell yourself or any sort of extreme in either direction. We just got it. We, we you construct a, um, I think a reasonable heuristic. And then the skill is in applying it consistently.
00:26:56
Speaker
It's certainly a tricky question. um And yeah, so the thought is that the lesson three is a contrast. We're thinking about the criteria of truth. Some people just have extremely high criteria where nothing can pass the bar and what the so ah stoics reject that approach. And this was the upshot of lesson three is that, you know, we should reject it as well.
00:27:23
Speaker
ah which means we can come to form beliefs. And then you know how we specify what common sense is or what which impressions we should trust or not, the Stoics give us some ingredients for that question, of course. And then it's I think it's just a matter of applying advice from other philosophers over other fields, a mix of general advice, domain specific type questions, just really getting your hands dirty I suppose with whatever question you're you're concerned with. Yeah like Epictetus has all these lines where he just like kind of throws up his hands and is disgusted by talking to these skeptics or something and being like how can I even talk to you you know like ah you're telling me it's you can't tell if it's daytime and the sun is out like how can I I can't even have a conversation with you you're not like we're not speaking the same language you're not trying to pursue truth and so that is to say that I guess the the upside here is don't
00:28:24
Speaker
Don't lock yourself out from truth in an attempt to pursue it. Don't be like, oh, you know it's so important I get this right. I'm going to construct such an unachievable criteria for myself that I'm actually not going to give myself access to the kinds of true beliefs that are right in front of me because I'm going to mean to make it such a high bar to clear. And that's really what the stoics are are rejecting. I think you gave good examples. I tried to give some examples of what that common sense might look like. It's obviously context specific.
00:28:53
Speaker
But um as you said, reject that, I guess, temptation to hold yourself to such a high standard that you can't even really navigate the world coherently. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Cool. Cool. um And so and so that's that's on the criterion of truth.
00:29:15
Speaker
And then lesson four is going to be ah this this idea that the Stoics have around impressions. I call it building confidence through expertise. But one thing's the Stoics think, so I think it's true. They think that people receive different impressions from the same event. Well, that part is obviously true. um But that the impression you receive from an event is actually modified by your experience.
00:29:40
Speaker
um And one way this comes about is that experts receive very different impressions than non experts. So, I don't, I literally do not hear the same thing. My mind does not experience the same thing. When I listen to Mozart as a symphony pianist.
00:30:00
Speaker
they they They experience something different than I do. They don't just interpret the thing. that's that that's I guess that's the jump is they don't just interpret the thing differently. They actually experience something differently because it's already being filtered through our minds and their mind is taking in that information differently, constructing a different representation of it. I was ah i was thinking a lot about cows when i was writing this I was writing this outline. So when I see a cow, I just see a cow. I think that's a cow. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's not even a cow.
00:30:29
Speaker
Maybe it's a bull, but when a farmer sees a cow or are bulls cows. Yeah. Actually bulls are male cows are female. Both are cattle though.
00:30:40
Speaker
Oh, there you go. See, that that that reveals my ignorance. But when a farmer sees a cow, they they might know their age, the cow's health, yeah the type of cow, whether it's a bull or not, like I just did. So they they they see something different. So these were called, for the Stoics, were called expert impressions. I'm an expert in Brazilian jitsu. I'm i'm comfortable saying that.
00:31:02
Speaker
um So like when I watch a movie, I immediately am like, oh, that fight scene is silly, or that's a really good fight scene. I just like, I intuit that almost immediately, just from hours of watching people fight. um And so one of the stoic stoic points here is that expert expert impressions are a great criterion of truth.
00:31:21
Speaker
um In other words, we can learn to trust things with more confidence when we know a lot about this thing. And that's a reason to gain expertise. It's a reason to value our value expertise and gain expertise because Yeah, it helps us, I guess it's both to say, become an expert in something and trust your expertise in that. And then if you find other bonafide experts, not people that just say that they are bonafide experts, then trust their experience. Listen to their experience because that's a, basically a good way of coming about knowledge or an effective way to come about knowledge.
00:31:58
Speaker
Yeah, and I think i think this this ah gets at some answer to some of the earlier questions we had around how do you define the criteria of truth? What does common sense looks like look like? um One way to answer those questions is to ah determine what does it mean to become an expert in this domain? What do other experts use as their criterion of truth?
00:32:30
Speaker
And yeah what do I need to become an expert and in my thinking? So I think that's ah that's pretty that's pretty a useful way to make ah progress on um those kinds of questions. Yeah, I really like that. What do other experts, how how does an expert decide what to believe? yeah And that's probably a pretty good ah that's probably a pretty good standard for yourself.
00:32:57
Speaker
Great one. And that's something that I think about, which is that this idea of but we don't want to. i guess it's I guess the point is just to is just to yeah to privilege expertise, to value expertise. um And another reason to to cultivate that in ourselves. um One thing that I always thought in my own life, getting a bit away from epistemology here, one thing my Brazilian jiu-jitsu coach used to say is like you know if you get really good at jiu-jitsu, you can like know what it is to be good at something, and then you can apply that to the other crafts in your life.
00:33:34
Speaker
um You can under you can feel expertise. And that's something that I think that they're they're applying here to knowledge right once you really know something you understand the standard it takes to reach that I think about that in terms of my own.
00:33:49
Speaker
ah philosophy education in terms of my PhD. I think what my PhD gave me more than anything was actually a kind of humility about, wow, if if I know something about stoicism, then I don't know anything about anything else. you know like I don't reach that standard anywhere else. And so it gives you almost a kind of humility. Just an interesting thing to think about and and a good way to generate that criteria for yourself. I think so. I think i think that's right.
00:34:17
Speaker
and I suppose there's that another line on this is that you know Marcus Aurelius praises sextus for his ability to analyze, understand issues in detail. And one way to think about advancing an expertise is something like the amount of detail you have.
00:34:37
Speaker
ah mastery over. Of course, that's just one aspect. There are many different aspects, but I think that connects nicely with the point that experts see the world differently than non-experts or even intermediates, beginners, and such. and You can recognize that kind of progression in yourself whether it's through whether it's playing chess, um understanding social interactions, ah whatever it is. Yeah, great. um and so Moving on to the fifth lesson,
00:35:06
Speaker
And so we're at this point now, right? ah Default to skepticism, have a defined criterion of truth to get out of skepticism. That criterion of truth shouldn't be at such a high standard that it's unachievable, and that when we're looking for it,
00:35:22
Speaker
uh expertise is a good way to start either what you're an expert in or what other people have expertise what other experts use to navigate these kinds of situations i think the the the last way to you know go about because because we're really as a stoic we're trying to be out in the world we're not trying to be perfect we're trying to at least as a progressing stoic we're not trying to be perfect we're trying to ah integrate in the world in good faith and have these good heuristics. So one of these other heuristics that the Stoke raises is to have opinions that are revisable.
00:35:55
Speaker
um you know So so so but the question is, we've we've raised this criteria of truth, we've given cognitive impressions as an example, we've given expertise as another example. um but How do we navigate a world where we can't always have cognitive impressions of everything, where not everything passes the criterion of truth we've set for ourselves?
00:36:13
Speaker
well the soic answer is we have these kind of I can call them weak beliefs, um but that's ah that has a technical background in stoicism. So it's more just beliefs that are revisable or beliefs that have a recognition of their weakness kind of built into them. So we form opinions about things that are ready to be revised upon new evidence. It's hard to do, but it's it's something like saying, well, you know the evidence points mostly in this direction, so that's how I'll act until new evidence comes.
00:36:44
Speaker
That is a much different thing than saying, this is the best course of action. um To say, this seems like the best course of action, but I'm open to new evidence. And the stoic point is that unless you're confident, unless it passes that criteria, form opinions like this. Form your beliefs like this. um There's this really funny story ah from a so ah funny ancient story. This is an ancient example.
00:37:11
Speaker
which can either be a criticism or stoicism. You can either think it's really smart or you think it's really stupid depending on where you're coming from. It's either interested in what people listening think about, you know, you think the stoic had a good answer or do you think it's a cop-out?
00:37:25
Speaker
um But basically, it's ah it's a there's a stoic and ah a skeptic tries to trick them. So the skeptic gives them a ah wax piece of fruit to eat, and the stoic bites into it. And the skeptic is like, I tricked you. You believe that was a fruit. You thought you had a cognitive impression of a fruit, but cognitive impressions, they don't work. ah So you know you you were wrong. Cognitive impressions aren't good criterion of truth.
00:37:48
Speaker
And the Stoic is like, no, no, no, I only opined that it was likely to be a fruit. I only formed the belief that it seemed to be the case to be a fruit. And you know whether or not that's satisfying, i it can be both at the same time. But I think there is a lesson here to be like that Stoic and to go, if you go about and think, you know not you know you start dating someone new and you don't think, wow This is the person for me. This is the love of my life. We'll always be together. But instead you think, wow, you know this seems like this could be the person. This seems like this could be the person I spend my life with. you know How much less heartbroken will you be if it goes south? you Or if you start a new job and you're excited for it and you think, well, this could this could be a really good opportunity. um Just framing things around that, framing things as as these beliefs that are open to revision um and not
00:38:43
Speaker
committed beliefs. it's ah It's a better way to live in terms of the truth, but as we said at the start, the goal is is ah to live a good life. right The truth is intermingled with the ethical aspect of life and the happiness aspect of life. So not only will you be closer to the truth, but you will be happier if your beliefs are open to revision. ah You will be more ethical if your beliefs are open to revision. right If you judge somebody, you hate someone,
00:39:12
Speaker
And you say, well, I'm going to hate them until I get new evidence. And then you get evidence that they've changed or they've genuinely apologized. Well, now you're a kinder person, you're a more forgiving person. So that I think is, that's one of those important heuristics where it's like,
00:39:28
Speaker
I'm both going to hold myself to this high standard and pursue truth, but I'm also going to understand that I can't have truth everywhere. So I'm going to develop this way of of acting with as much confidence I can act, but being open to changing my mind later. Uh, something that I'm trying to balance in my own life. Yeah, that sounds awesome. And I think it brings together the strands of the previous ones. Um, you were saying before we started recording that it's sort of, it's an application of the,
00:39:58
Speaker
reserve clause, the stoic reserve clause to epistemology, which I think is a really nice way to think about it. you know In action, you have and the idea that, you know, I might want to come up with plans or something of this sort, so I can advise us to think, you know, I'll do this fate willing. ah This will happen fate willing and such, and that way you have this you you have this recognition that you'll do your best. um But while recognizing that things might turn out differently, the external world is not something we have direct control over. And likewise, I think you can think about many beliefs we come to form as having a similar character in a sense that, you know, I think this is the case
00:40:41
Speaker
reality willing and then being open to the possibility that the evidence comes out differently. And if it does come out differently, if you aren't get new information, then you can change your belief. So I think that's a nice analogy, and a nice ah way the reserve clause works throughout different areas of life. Yeah, absolutely. like the So much of stoicism is is just
00:41:07
Speaker
It's about having a smooth flow of life. Something I come back to is that phrase from Epictetus, a smooth flow of life. And there's two ways to have a smooth flow of life and that's one is to not over commit to things that are false because they things get bumpy when you pull in one direction and fate, life, the world pulls you in another. It's a very jarring experience. The other way to have a smooth life is to double down on the things that are true.
00:41:33
Speaker
You know, ride the waves when you know they're true. And I think these things, this encapsulates kind of both of those, which is to say, ah having a criterion of truth pursuing knowledge, that's about committing to, I'm going to actually really follow the flow of things when I know it's the flow of things, when I know it's the way the world is.
00:41:53
Speaker
I'm not going to put myself against the flow of the world. And then the defaulting to skepticism and having revisable opinions, that's about limiting the downside of ignorance, which is to say, I'm not going to, uh, I'm not going to you know tie myself to the wrong cart here. I'm not going to form any opinions that are in opposition to how things are because I know those are painful. I know those don't end up well.
00:42:16
Speaker
it's kind of a it's a yeah ah If you live like this, your life will be a lot smoother without really sacrificing much of the commitment and enthusiasm and joy. you know Yeah, I think so. I think so. I think my takeaways from these lessons are just another reminder to ah carefully respond to impressions instead of immediately reacting.
00:42:40
Speaker
Uh, with, uh, a sense or disagreement. I think that's always, always a good reminder. And then I do really like this application of the reserve clause to our beliefs. And then thinking through, okay, what is the evidence that would cause me to change my mind and actively trying to seek out, uh, that evidence when do, when doing so, uh, is beneficial. Yeah, I think that's a great summary. I think I take away similar things. I try to really.
00:43:11
Speaker
The criterion of truth is really hard if you apply it to things that don't make you feel good or hard decisions. It's really hard, but it's something I really, I tried to trust it. And you should revise your criterion if it if it's not, uh, if it's producing incorrect, were so yeah like incorrect results, but you shouldn't revise if it makes you feel bad and because then it's the world, it's the world that's making you feel better. It's the world that's doing the thing you don't prefer.
00:43:39
Speaker
It's not your decision-making process. You should trust that decision-making process. And that for me, I think your reminders or your, your takeaways were very true. I think my takeaway is just a, is primarily a reminder of the power or I wouldn't say the power, the challenge of doing that, the actual craft of doing that on a day to day when it's very tempting to make an excuse this time. That's true. That's also true. Yeah. That's always a temptation.
00:44:10
Speaker
Cool. Awesome. Did you want to add anything else? No, maybe I'll go through those one more time. Cool. Cool. So from the top, these are five lessons and grounded in stoic epistemology, but made a bit more applicable for the day to day. First is the default to skepticism. So take a kind of defensive posture, be cautious about what comes along. Don't it's always harder to unlearn ignorance or, uh, remove a belief after you've formed it.
00:44:37
Speaker
The second is to have a defined criteria of truth. So have some sort of standard you hold yourself to and then apply it consistently and fairly in that situation. That's how you'll avoid confirmation bias. That's how you'll gain confidence in the things you do believe.
00:44:51
Speaker
When developing a criteria of truth, the third idea is is to just is to have common sense. And I don't mean common sense as a rejection of expertise. We'll get to that in the next part. But common sense is to say, don't have it to be some so standard so high it's not achievable. We want to believe things. We want to go about committing to things, um as long as you have a good reason to do so. um Then the fourth lesson is that we can build confidence around our criteria of truth through expertise.
00:45:21
Speaker
ah So you know think about how you think about the things you know a lot about, and then maybe expand that to other domains. Or when you're entering a i see new environment, you maybe that's ah politics, economics, look at the examples we used, ah trust what the experts think. Or not trust what the experts think. I shouldn't say that. That's that's incorrect.
00:45:42
Speaker
reflect on how the experts come to a decision and then apply that process. And then the last one is that, well, look, we can't always be experts. We can't always meet our criterion of truth. So what do we do? Well, we form opinions that are revisible. We have beliefs that we recognize might be false, but we're going to act on until more evidence comes around. And that's a way to have a belief system that is open to new information, open to moving closer to the truth.
00:46:11
Speaker
Um, but still allows us to take a position still allows us to commit, um, in our roles and in our life. And so that's a, that's some common sense stoic epistemology. Awesome. Sweet. Well summarized. Cool. Thanks Gil. Thanks Michael.