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.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
