As we read and think about moral compasses, the recent essay by David Brooks in the September Atlantic asks the touhgh questions, but more how our nation has lost its compass. Long read longer narration but asks essential questions
This is a tough snake to grab! I will write now using actual examples. Yesterday, I had an argument—not in the hostile sense often connoted—that I found it unreasonable for a Finnish woman I met in Crete on holiday 30 years ago to be paid to be beaten by a middle eastern prince in Paris. (Stay with me.😊) I felt that it was not worth the money because she risked severe injury. A filmmaker introduced me to a screenwriter last week whom I met the other night. We talked in mutual agreement condoning suicide and being pro (in favor of) people choosing to be sex workers. I believe these fall as acceptable (within reason) in Stoic philosophy. She then said it was the right (or prerogative) of my Finnish friend to choose to be beaten, and that I should be supportive. I couldn’t then, and I doubt I can now. Why, though? Am I not asking the right questions to myself about my judgements? After all, if I accept suicide—and I do in dire cases—how illogical for me not to accept being beaten nearly to death? How do I clear this imaginary mess up? 🤷🏻♂️
I read and listened to this piece just after I read an opinion piece in the New York Times by Agnes Callard entitled "I Teach the Humanities, and I Still Don't Know What Their Value Is." The thesis of the NYT piece seems to be that advocacy for the Humanities is inimical to the spirit of inquiry that is central to the humanities. I wonder about that. This podcast ends with an argument for education in the humanities, an argument worth making, I'd say.
As we read and think about moral compasses, the recent essay by David Brooks in the September Atlantic asks the touhgh questions, but more how our nation has lost its compass. Long read longer narration but asks essential questions
Reading , listening to the wide variety of opinions today on 1 st ammendment, perhaps this insight would help
This is a tough snake to grab! I will write now using actual examples. Yesterday, I had an argument—not in the hostile sense often connoted—that I found it unreasonable for a Finnish woman I met in Crete on holiday 30 years ago to be paid to be beaten by a middle eastern prince in Paris. (Stay with me.😊) I felt that it was not worth the money because she risked severe injury. A filmmaker introduced me to a screenwriter last week whom I met the other night. We talked in mutual agreement condoning suicide and being pro (in favor of) people choosing to be sex workers. I believe these fall as acceptable (within reason) in Stoic philosophy. She then said it was the right (or prerogative) of my Finnish friend to choose to be beaten, and that I should be supportive. I couldn’t then, and I doubt I can now. Why, though? Am I not asking the right questions to myself about my judgements? After all, if I accept suicide—and I do in dire cases—how illogical for me not to accept being beaten nearly to death? How do I clear this imaginary mess up? 🤷🏻♂️
I read and listened to this piece just after I read an opinion piece in the New York Times by Agnes Callard entitled "I Teach the Humanities, and I Still Don't Know What Their Value Is." The thesis of the NYT piece seems to be that advocacy for the Humanities is inimical to the spirit of inquiry that is central to the humanities. I wonder about that. This podcast ends with an argument for education in the humanities, an argument worth making, I'd say.