The physician and the monk. It was a crisp September Saturday morning. There was a discerning, yet comfortable chill in the air, interspersed with the warmth from the piercing sun rays. Dr. Advait Kapoor, a practicing interventional cardiologist at a suburban community hospital in the USA, was looking forward to his 2-week annual leave, away from the busyness of his life as a practicing clinician, a father, and a researcher. He wanted to flee away from the cacophony, drama, and sabotage he had experienced at his workplace. He had never planned a vacation just for himself, until now—there were no travel plans with kids to exotic destinations; there were no conferences at the annual scientific sessions. He was going to Dharamsala, India, on a spiritual pilgrim, yearning for a journey within to rekindle with his own true self. Clearing through Customs and Border Protection in Delhi, he was brimming with excitement in anticipation of Vipassana meditation sessions from the monks in the hometown of The Dalai Lama. … (European Heart Journal)
Time is an object, not an illusion. A timeless universe is hard to imagine, but not because time is a technically complex or philosophically elusive concept. There is a more structural reason: imagining timelessness requires time to pass. Even when you try to imagine its absence, you sense it moving as your thoughts shift, your heart pumps blood to your brain, and images, sounds and smells move around you. The thing that is time never seems to stop. You may even feel woven into its ever-moving fabric as you experience the Universe coming together and apart. But is that how time really works? … (Aeon)
Is the “marshmallow test” really a predictor of future success? You know those times when you try to share a favorite movie, band, or restaurant with friends, and they just don’t get it? For mysterious reasons, you can’t refashion the moment for them as you experienced it originally. Where you found passion and insight and a life-changing creme brulee, they see just another meal served up by a sulky waiter. For more than a decade, psychology has been enduring the institutional version of this. It’s called the replication crisis because researchers have been unable to replicate the results of many well-cited studies. And that’s a problem. … (Big Think)
The Ethics of Suicide. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the 20th century French-Existentialist Albert Camus wrote, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.” The film, Plan 75, investigates the question: if a government sponsored a plan for euthanasia for those 75 and older, would you consent to it? The film explores this in the context of Japanese culture, and it does so without explicit reference to people below the age of 75. Nevertheless, there is a choice. You don’t have to do it, but if you want to, you can. This raises the theoretical question about suicide that is asked and explored in depth by Immanuel Kant: Is it ever moral to end one own’s life? … (The Philosophers’ Magazine)
‘Rhetoric’ doesn’t need to be such an ugly word – it has a lot to teach echo-chambered America. Early on in my writing courses, I ask students to define their sense of rhetoric. Responses range from “persuasion” to “manipulation,” but they tend to share a negative connotation. Little wonder: In America today, the word is often used to dismiss a political opponent. Whereas a Democrat may find a favorite candidate’s speech inspiring, a Republican might call it “mere rhetoric,” implying a lack of substance or even honesty. But what is rhetoric, really? More importantly, what does rhetoric do? Today, rhetoric is often associated with one-sided arguments that cater to a particular corner of an echo chamber. Writing something off as “rhetoric” is often a power play, more about putting down an opponent than really seeking truth. Yet the earliest sense of the word, from the first rhetoricians 2,500 years ago, may help us listen to, learn from and even see validity in other perspectives. … (The Conversation)