To those of you who practice moderation and free thinking I raise a glass to you.
You haven’t been indoctrinated by the left or the right. You think about policies when voting rather than supporting “your side”. And in every scenario you stop and think, is this the right thing for my country and people - even the ones I disagree with, rather than blindingly following or opposing.
Your approach to life means both the left and right and right distrust you but want your undivided attention at all times. Do not be troubled, you’re doing it right.
That might have worked 30 years ago. Don't think it flies today. We don't vote on single issues. And just because someone votes a certain way doesn't necessarily mean they've been indoctrinated. Perhaps they're just educated. If one is truly interested in voting in the best way for the country there isn't an option. Not when one party is seeking to break down the institutions of government, keep the poor and minorities down while supporting the richest, take away rights of others and destroy regulations intended to keep people healthy and safe. You can't tell me that's not true and it has nothing to do with indoctrination. It's the facts. Are there outliers? There are. On specific issues. But as a whole there's a very definitive line in the sand now. It's not good for the country but it is what it is.
@Castenmas You said something foolish. It was sophomoric and appeals to emotion. I work from reality. Makes more sense. And kid? "Triggered?" That word is done. It's used by foolish rubes who are intellectually limited. Just so you know. I commented on your post because of your first line. "You haven't been indoctrinated by the left or right." That's just silly. It's a failed attempt by some to appear "independent." Like they're 'free-thinkers." It's a jack off. And you're the guy who posted the video from Prager U. about the guy dressing in a sombrero, right? And you want to be taken seriously? While clearly having ZERO understanding of how videos like that are created and why? You just swallowed it and ran with it, right? Pretty gutsy to pop off about the indoctrination of others man. Enjoy Malta bro. A place with two parties. It's always good to stay in our lanes.
@Ynotisay As I said. A triggered over emotional response.
But I’m led to an understand from other SWers that this is to be expected from you. It’s all you’ve got. With that in mind, go and have the day you deserve.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
It doesn't necessarily got anything to do with moderation and free thinking. A lot of people will use moderation as an excuse of limiting free thinking, or even accuse of others not being three thinking. It brings me to question, what is free thinking, and who'll be objective to define it?
Cheers! I'm a trade union member and a conservative. I'm a Christian and I believe in the sanctity of the bedroom. I do know the difference between love and lust. God's love is real even for sinners like me
@revenant Ah yes, the benefits outweigh anything else :) For both the main question was about the dangers of zealotry, of serious religious belief (for Montaigne), or the dangers of the lack of zealotry (for Pascal). Whenever I think of Pascal's famous saying that it is the heart that feels God and not reason, well, I go back in my memories of staying at my grandparents. They didn't go to church but had great faith. There was enough scared heart imaginary around for that. It's a real pity that people nowadays are more interested in how to use smartphones correctly than finding true and long lasting spirituality
There are hundreds; maybe thousands of books I have read; and millions, perhaps billions I have not (Including anything I recall, written by anyone called Montaigne.) - none of which prevents me from being open minded. Why do you think it would?
Oh, I looked for something by Montaigne (do you think he was open minded?) and found this:
'"[i]Valour has its bounds as well as other virtues, which, once transgressed, the next step is into the territories of vice; so that by having too large a proportion of this heroic virtue, unless a man be very perfect in its limits, which upon the confines are very hard to discern, he may very easily unawares run into temerity, obstinacy, and folly. From this consideration it is that we have derived the custom, in times of war, to punish, even with death, those who are obstinate to defend a place that by the rules of war is not tenable; otherwise men would be so confident upon the hope of impunity, that not a henroost but would resist and seek to stop an army[/i].'"
I have I have no reason to read anything written in such a convoluted, antiquated style. There is plenty of modern thoughtfully written philosophy that's easily accessible in both senses of the word.
I do enjoy Kierkegaard among others - "[i]The thinker without a paradox is a paltry mediocrity[/i]" (Either/Or)
I also appreciate fiction writers - Le Carré is one - who can quietly include social, political & philosophical thought within the stories they spin.
"[i]This will require the elevation of pragmatism over ideology. It will require that both sides give up rights. Rights. Giving up rights is a hard thing to do. It will require that each side recognizes and acknowledges the pain and the suffering of the other. And it will require an end to the hateful attitudes and speech that some on each side direct against the other[/i]. - John Le Carré's character Amos in 'Absolute friends'."
In any case I read only for my own enjoyment and learning.
