So, so, SO glad that you name-dropped Epicurus! Epicureanism (and later utilitarianism) has been such a big influence on my own life and way of thinking.
"To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously."
I see this statement as the key to opening the doors or perception. If we understand ourselves as being on the other side, we perceive that our beliefs are in opposition with another. And when debating oppositions, we are likely to experience hostility toward that person or group. Truth is a tricky thing as ee know from the allegory of the cave. If anyone has read peer to peer Scienticic Journals, you will understand, it's not about boasting intelligence or truth, but compiled information to see if it can be corrected or built on. -all swans are white and all cats have tails, right?
As always Anya, you bring forth my questioning mind.
Might not the bigger question be, paraphrased, "Why indeed do we go to great pains and boundless cognitive dissonance to try to always be right and NOT wrong?" Because isn't it just a WANT, nay a NEED.
I'll grant that, "To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously.", yet if the opposite refuses to seriously listen themselves what's the point of even trying when you'd be assailed when they lash out or respond defensively.
True or not, Epicurus's reaction and response goes to the heart and mind of philosophic's ideals, not the loins or as you so well put it, "contrary to a life seeking pleasure.", as he gained not just knowledge and personal growth, but a happiness, a pleasure if you will, and not a painful experience. Which I think came from being proven wrong by his student.
This one IS tough because, as you know, Anya, I am hardly ever wrong…
But I had fallen sway, being older myself, to the idea that Joe Biden was indeed too old to handle his current job. And I was accepting the merciless media (etc.) attack on him because of his age. Then I reevaluated the information I was taking in and understood that his age was a matter of indifference (no pun intended to or from my fellow Stoics); that I had become trapped within the “horse race” mentality the media represents instead of analyzing the true meaning of the Presidency and the information about the actual race I had received. Further, that the two “sides” were clearly the issue and not the two “horses” and these two sides showed clear distinctions above and beyond the matter of age. Not to mention the obvious fact that “age” as an issue was apparent on both sides.
War will only end when people refuse to fight and any war must be fought by the one(s) who instigate it. ie Putin must fight the leader of any country he wants to take over and that leader chooses the terms.
So, so, SO glad that you name-dropped Epicurus! Epicureanism (and later utilitarianism) has been such a big influence on my own life and way of thinking.
"To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously."
I see this statement as the key to opening the doors or perception. If we understand ourselves as being on the other side, we perceive that our beliefs are in opposition with another. And when debating oppositions, we are likely to experience hostility toward that person or group. Truth is a tricky thing as ee know from the allegory of the cave. If anyone has read peer to peer Scienticic Journals, you will understand, it's not about boasting intelligence or truth, but compiled information to see if it can be corrected or built on. -all swans are white and all cats have tails, right?
As always Anya, you bring forth my questioning mind.
Might not the bigger question be, paraphrased, "Why indeed do we go to great pains and boundless cognitive dissonance to try to always be right and NOT wrong?" Because isn't it just a WANT, nay a NEED.
I'll grant that, "To bridge the divide in our increasingly polarized culture, we need to first be able to even listen to the other side... seriously.", yet if the opposite refuses to seriously listen themselves what's the point of even trying when you'd be assailed when they lash out or respond defensively.
True or not, Epicurus's reaction and response goes to the heart and mind of philosophic's ideals, not the loins or as you so well put it, "contrary to a life seeking pleasure.", as he gained not just knowledge and personal growth, but a happiness, a pleasure if you will, and not a painful experience. Which I think came from being proven wrong by his student.
This one IS tough because, as you know, Anya, I am hardly ever wrong…
But I had fallen sway, being older myself, to the idea that Joe Biden was indeed too old to handle his current job. And I was accepting the merciless media (etc.) attack on him because of his age. Then I reevaluated the information I was taking in and understood that his age was a matter of indifference (no pun intended to or from my fellow Stoics); that I had become trapped within the “horse race” mentality the media represents instead of analyzing the true meaning of the Presidency and the information about the actual race I had received. Further, that the two “sides” were clearly the issue and not the two “horses” and these two sides showed clear distinctions above and beyond the matter of age. Not to mention the obvious fact that “age” as an issue was apparent on both sides.
War will only end when people refuse to fight and any war must be fought by the one(s) who instigate it. ie Putin must fight the leader of any country he wants to take over and that leader chooses the terms.