#doubt — Public Fediverse posts

Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReinholdNiebuhr #Anxiety #Certainty #Doubt #Orthodoxy #Religion

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BWCA #RoseFalls #Minnesota

Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReinholdNiebuhr #Anxiety #Certainty #Doubt #Orthodoxy #Religion

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BWCA #RoseFalls #Minnesota

Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReinholdNiebuhr #Anxiety #Certainty #Doubt #Orthodoxy #Religion

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BWCA #RoseFalls #Minnesota

Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReinholdNiebuhr #Anxiety #Certainty #Doubt #Orthodoxy #Religion

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BWCA #RoseFalls #Minnesota

Men insist most vehemently upon their certainties when their hold upon them has been shaken. Frantic orthodoxy is a method for obscuring doubt.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReinholdNiebuhr #Anxiety #Certainty #Doubt #Orthodoxy #Religion

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #BWCA #RoseFalls #Minnesota

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

Brent crude tops $125 as Iran war worries mount

Brent crude tops $125 a barrel on Iran war worries, while wo…
#Conflict #Conflicts #War #barrel #blockade #brentcrude #consumercosts #CrudeOil #doubt #earlywednesday #energymarket #hormuz #Iran #iranwar #iranianport #jsnd #latefebruary #middleeast #middleeastcrisis #oilprices #permanentend #price #relatedvideo #strait #StraitofHormuz #Tehran #thursday #u.s.-irantalk #U.S. #U.S.futures #U.S.Irantalks #worldstocks
https://www.europesays.com/2955632/

https://www.europesays.com/iran/90442/ Brent crude tops $125 as Iran war worries mount #barrel #blockade #BrentCrude #ConsumerCosts #CrudeOil #doubt #EarlyWednesday #EnergyMarket #Hormuz #Iran #IranWar #IranianPort #jsnd #LateFebruary #OilPrices #PermanentEnd #price #RelatedVideo #strait #StraitOfHormuz #thursday #USIranTalk #US #USFutures #USIranTalks #WorldStocks

Brent crude tops $125 as Iran war worries mount

Brent crude tops $125 a barrel on Iran war worries, while world stocks retreat Upda…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #barrel #blockade #breakingnews #Brentcrude #consumercosts #crudeoil #doubt #earlywednesday #energymarket #hormuz #Iran #iranwar #iranianport #jsnd #latefebruary #oilprices #permanentend #price #relatedvideo #strait #StraitofHormuz #thursday #u.s. #u.s.-irantalk #U.S.Futures #u.s.irantalks #worldstocks
https://www.newsbeep.com/511854/

Brent crude tops $125 as Iran war worries mount

Brent crude tops $125 a barrel on Iran war worries, while world stocks retreat Upda…
#NewsBeep #News #BreakingNews #barrel #blockade #breakingnews #Brentcrude #consumercosts #crudeoil #doubt #earlywednesday #energymarket #hormuz #Iran #iranwar #iranianport #jsnd #latefebruary #oilprices #permanentend #price #relatedvideo #strait #StraitofHormuz #thursday #u.s. #u.s.-irantalk #U.S.Futures #u.s.irantalks #worldstocks
https://www.newsbeep.com/511851/

https://www.europesays.com/iran/90432/ Brent crude tops $125 as Iran war worries mount #barrel #blockade #BrentCrude #ConsumerCosts #CrudeOil #doubt #EarlyWednesday #EnergyMarket #Hormuz #Iran #IranWar #IranianPort #jsnd #LateFebruary #OilPrices #PermanentEnd #price #RelatedVideo #strait #StraitOfHormuz #thursday #USIranTalk #US #USFutures #USIranTalks #WorldStocks

Unicursal POISON SNAKES DESTROY THEE IF DOUBT THYSELF Propaganda from Hermetic Library Office of the Ministry of Information

https://hermetic.com/information/poison-snakes-destroy-thee-if-doubt-thyself/index

#propaganda #AleisterCrowley #thelema #poison #dead #DeadSnakes #snakes #destroy #LendThem #life #one #OneDoubt #doubt #seed #division

"Student placed his eye in the trajectory of a projectile. Lawyer hints his showing up might be responsible"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/us/usc-student-loses-eye-no-kings-protest.html

Here is an example of the method of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt:

#responsibility #safety #NYT #professionalism #institutionsDeceive #postFactual #bias #manipulation #news #media #doubt #FUD #press #reporting #journalism #protesting #protests #NoKings

"Student placed his eye in the trajectory of a projectile. Lawyer hints his showing up might be responsible"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/us/usc-student-loses-eye-no-kings-protest.html

Here is an example of the method of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt:

#responsibility #safety #NYT #professionalism #institutionsDeceive #postFactual #bias #manipulation #news #media #doubt #FUD #press #reporting #journalism #protesting #protests #NoKings

"Student placed his eye in the trajectory of a projectile. Lawyer hints his showing up might be responsible"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/us/usc-student-loses-eye-no-kings-protest.html

Here is an example of the method of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt:

#responsibility #safety #NYT #professionalism #institutionsDeceive #postFactual #bias #manipulation #news #media #doubt #FUD #press #reporting #journalism #protesting #protests #NoKings

"Student placed his eye in the trajectory of a projectile. Lawyer hints his showing up might be responsible"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/us/usc-student-loses-eye-no-kings-protest.html

Here is an example of the method of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt:

#responsibility #safety #NYT #professionalism #institutionsDeceive #postFactual #bias #manipulation #news #media #doubt #FUD #press #reporting #journalism #protesting #protests #NoKings

"Student placed his eye in the trajectory of a projectile. Lawyer hints his showing up might be responsible"
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/us/usc-student-loses-eye-no-kings-protest.html

Here is an example of the method of Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt:

#responsibility #safety #NYT #professionalism #institutionsDeceive #postFactual #bias #manipulation #news #media #doubt #FUD #press #reporting #journalism #protesting #protests #NoKings

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

A quotation from Montaigne

Deliberation, even about the slightest things, annoys me; and I feel my mind harder put to it to endure the various shocks and ups and downs of doubt and deliberation, than to settle down and accept any course whatever, after the die is cast. Few passions have troubled my sleep; but as for deliberations, the slightest one troubles it.
 
[Le deliberer, voire és choses plus legeres, m’importune. Et sens mon esprit plus empesché à souffrir le bransle, & les secousses diverses du doute, & de la consultation, qu’à se rassoir & resoudre à quelque party que ce soit, apres que la chance est livree. Peu de passions m’ont troublé le sommeil ; mais des deliberations, la moindre me le trouble.]

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) French essayist
Essays, Book 2, ch. 17 (2.17), “Of Presumption [De la Presomption]” (1578) [tr. Frame (1943)]

More about (and translations of) this quote: wist.info/montaigne-michel-de/…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #montaigne #consideration #deciding #decisionmaking #deliberation #doubt #indecision #sleeplessness #insomnia

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.
-- Richard Feynman

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #RichardFeynman #Doubt #TheUnknown #Uncertainty

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Clouds #Iowa

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.
-- Richard Feynman

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #RichardFeynman #Doubt #TheUnknown #Uncertainty

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Clouds #Iowa

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.
-- Richard Feynman

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #RichardFeynman #Doubt #TheUnknown #Uncertainty

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Clouds #Iowa

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.
-- Richard Feynman

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #RichardFeynman #Doubt #TheUnknown #Uncertainty

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Clouds #Iowa

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.... I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose.
-- Richard Feynman

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #RichardFeynman #Doubt #TheUnknown #Uncertainty

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Sunset #Clouds #Iowa

https://www.europesays.com/ie/377525/ No Doubt singer Gwen Stefani says ‘miracle’ baby at 44 sparked a religious awakening #44 #at #awakening #baby #Delivered #doubt #Éire #Entertainment #epiphany #Gwen #having #IE #Ireland #judge #Miracle #Music #no #religious #says #singer #sparked #spiritual #Stefani #Voice #when

*~*2 Peter 3:1-13*~*

*~*💌☁️🌈☁️🐎🛡️🗡️👑✝️🕊️❤️‍🔥💦🫂🛐💒🏩🪽😇🪽🌏🌐🩷💁‍♀️[DEAR BELOVED👉

#The #Day #of #the #Lord #Will #Come #PATIENCE #NO #DOUBT #BE #PREPARED #TIME #CHANGE #Different #Christ #our #true #and #only #Light #Enlighten #those #who #sit #in #night #Sunday #Devotional #GOD #Jesus #Christ #Holy #Spirit #Savior #World #People #Remember #Pray #Believe #Christian #Heaven #Hope #Peace #Faith #Truth #LOVE #ONE #ANOTHER #Goodness #Kindness #Caring #Hospitality #Helping #Others #Gentleness #Understanding #Everyone

*~*2 Peter 3:1-13*~*

*~*💌☁️🌈☁️🐎🛡️🗡️👑✝️🕊️❤️‍🔥💦🫂🛐💒🏩🪽😇🪽🌏🌐🩷💁‍♀️[DEAR BELOVED👉

#The #Day #of #the #Lord #Will #Come #PATIENCE #NO #DOUBT #BE #PREPARED #TIME #CHANGE #Different #Christ #our #true #and #only #Light #Enlighten #those #who #sit #in #night #Sunday #Devotional #GOD #Jesus #Christ #Holy #Spirit #Savior #World #People #Remember #Pray #Believe #Christian #Heaven #Hope #Peace #Faith #Truth #LOVE #ONE #ANOTHER #Goodness #Kindness #Caring #Hospitality #Helping #Others #Gentleness #Understanding #Everyone

A quotation from Franklin Roosevelt

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933-1945)
Speech (1945-04-13), Jefferson Day (undelivered)

More about this quote: wist.info/roosevelt-franklin-d…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #fdr #franklinroosevelt #franklindroosevelt #franklindelanoroosevelt #apprehension #concern #doubt #encouragement #fear #selfconfidence #selfdoubt #selflimitation

A quotation from Franklin Roosevelt

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933-1945)
Speech (1945-04-13), Jefferson Day (undelivered)

More about this quote: wist.info/roosevelt-franklin-d…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #fdr #franklinroosevelt #franklindroosevelt #franklindelanoroosevelt #apprehension #concern #doubt #encouragement #fear #selfconfidence #selfdoubt #selflimitation

New entry of AI-generated #comics and #jokes added to our #website:

#Doctrine of #Doubt

comics.lucentinian.com/14179
#VisitUsNow #NewsJokes #AIHumor #AILaughs #Comedy

After Dodgers’ disastrous World Series Game 1 loss, doubt has crept in https://www.rawchili.com/mlb/399045/ #Baseball #BlueJays #DaultonVarsho #DisastrousWorldSeriesGame #DodgerTeam #Dodgers #doubt #fan #FifthTime #FirstInning #game #MLB #NinthInning #none #RookiePitcher #run #WorldSeries

After Dodgers’ disastrous World Series Game 1 loss, doubt has crept in https://www.rawchili.com/mlb/399045/ #Baseball #BlueJays #DaultonVarsho #DisastrousWorldSeriesGame #DodgerTeam #Dodgers #doubt #fan #FifthTime #FirstInning #game #MLB #NinthInning #none #RookiePitcher #run #WorldSeries

Wife: Honey, please wake up our son.

Husband: I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.

https://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib333#chinese-music

#meme #HoneyPleaseWakeUpOurSon #thelema #faith #corpse #doubt #virgin

[…]
"What makes the ‘#growth mentality’ so appealing, Carol Dweck discovered, is that it creates a passion for learning rather than this thirst for approval. Its hallmark is the belief that human qualities like intelligence and creativity, and even relational capacities like love and friendship, can be cultivated through effort and practice. Not only are people with this mindset not discouraged by failure, they don't actually see themselves as failures in these situations, they see themselves as learners."

Samah Karaki, doctor in #neuroscience, wrote in her book "Le talent est une fiction"

@edutooters @psychology

#learning #raceMaking #adultDomination #patriarchy #growth #talent #teaching #joy #willingness #antiPsych #psychology #control #merit #success #doubt #personalDevelopment #school #assignments #assessments #education #imagination #performance #ranking #SamahKaraki #meritocracy #practice #training #diversityOfPractice #institutionsDeceive #science #believe

Every time we make a mistake, our brain opens to #learning.
National schools humiliate children. A motivation is that its role is to justify the social status assigned to each.
Other forms of learning, on the other hand, have no meritocratic mission: children can learn for themselves.

#EstelleSays 🧶

#neuroscience #raceMaking #adultDomination #patriarchy #intelligence #growth #talent #teaching #joy #willingness #antiPsych #psychology #control #merit #success #doubt #personalDevelopment #school #assignments #assessments #education #imagination #performance #ranking #SamahKaraki #meritocracy #practice #training

The #GOP is #challenging #overseas and #military #voting.

Their #challenges are the latest in a spate of efforts to #sow #doubt about the #election #results if #ConvictedFelon #DonaldTrump #loses.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/24/gop-challenge-overseas-military-ballots

Republicans also made concerns about the election a formal part of their #platform.

“We will implement measures to secure our elections,
including voter ID,
highly sophisticated paper ballots,
proof of citizenship and same-day voting.

We will not allow the Democrats to give voting rights to illegal aliens,” the document says.

Republicans say they are building an army of poll watchers and observers
to watch over the vote this year.

They’ve also appointed #Christina #Bobb,
a lawyer facing criminal charges in Arizona for her involvement in the #fake #electors scheme,
to head the party’s litigation efforts.

#Lara #Logan #conspiracy #die #convention #Jim #Hoft #Gateway #Pundit #misinformation #bankruptcy #Georgia #Dominion #libelous #stolen #YMCA #non #citizen #rare #messaging #doubt #debunked #rescan #confirmed #rigged #Jr #cheating #believe #Kari #Lake

Election denialism front and center at Republican national convention

“Don’t fuck us,” #Lara #Logan, the former CBS News anchor turned to me and said.
“If you use the word #conspiracy theorist in your story, I’m going to haunt you when I #die.”

It was the third day of the Republican national #convention and Logan was standing in the atrium of a hotel that was once the old Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee.
She was there to moderate a presentation by #Jim #Hoft,
the founder of the far-right website #Gateway #Pundit, and his twin brother, Joe, who is also a contributor to the site.

The site, which has become a launchpad for #misinformation,
has been in hot water recently.
The site declared #bankruptcy in April in order to delay civil suits from two #Georgia election workers and a former #Dominion Voting Systems employee who say the site defamed them.
The site denies publishing #libelous claims against the women.

The event billed as a “blockbuster interview” on the site’s “legal challenges and new beginnings” underscored how doubts about the outcome of the 2020 election continue to grip Republicans
(a PRRI poll from January found that 63% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was #stolen).

Inside and outside of the convention hall, it was clear in speeches and interviews with attendees throughout the week that doubts about the 2020 election remain,
and the possibility of another “stolen” vote looms.

The most direct reference to a stolen election in 2020 came in a pre-recorded video from Donald Trump
that aired on the jumbotron each night.
It was only one of two videos that repeated
(the other was a goofy video of Trump doing a wiggle-type dance to the song #YMCA).

“The most important thing we have to do is protect the vote.
You have to keep your eyes open because these people want to cheat
and they do cheat, and, frankly, it’s the only thing they do well,” Trump said in the video.

Republican speakers steered clear of the 2020 election results directly,
and instead repeatedly emphasized the threat of #non-#citizen voting,
which is exceedingly #rare and yet nonetheless has become a central part of the party’s #messaging around elections.

Just as Trump pointed to mail-in ballots to seed #doubt about the 2020 election,
experts believe that the emphasis on non-citizen voting is an effort to seed doubt about the election results in 2024.

At the Gateway Pundit event, there was little new information.
Jim Hoft walked the 20 or so attendees
– the event was also livestreamed on X
– through video footage that purported to show Georgia election workers running ballots through tabulator machines several times.

“We think this is important because in my world anyway where I grew up, you kind of count ballots two or three times,” Jim Hoft said.
He insisted that nothing the site had published had been disproven.

The claim that ballots were scanned multiple times in Georgia has been
#debunked repeatedly
and the women have both been cleared of any wrongdoing.

If there’s an issue scanning a single ballot within a batch
– a jam or a smudge on a ballot
– it’s common practice for election workers to delete the incomplete batch to #rescan the entire group until they have the correct total.

The state also conducted a hand recount of every single vote cast in the presidential race in Georgia that #confirmed Joe Biden’s win there.

At the convention, there was little doubt that the next election could be #rigged.
The struggle of the Biden campaign and Trump’s strong standing in the polls only increased the belief that any Democratic victory would be illegitimate.
Speaking at an Axios event on the sidelines of the convention, Donald Trump #Jr said that if Trump lost it would be because of “#cheating”.
“We’re going to have to make sure we have people watching [the election] very closely,” he said at the event.
“I don’t think that Joe Biden over-performed only in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee
– I just don’t #believe that’s real,” he said.

As part of their messaging around non-citizen voting, Republicans recently passed legislation in the US House that would
require anyone who registers to vote to show proof of citizenship.
Speakers at the convention picked up the mantle by suggesting that Democrats had opened the borders to allow non-citizens to vote.

#Kari #Lake, who is running for a US Senate seat in Arizona,
falsely accused her opponent, Representative Ruben Gallego,
of voting to “let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election”.

Imagining a second Biden term, Senator Rick Scott of Florida said: “It was easy for Democrats to rig the elections – they simply allowed all the non-citizens to vote.”

“[Democrats] want illegals to vote now that they opened the border,” Steve Scalise, a top Republican in the US House, said in his speech.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/19/election-denialism-republican-convention?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

"In the high country of the mind one has to become adjusted to the thinner air of uncertainty." — Robert M. Pirsig — — — #RobertMPirsig #quote #quotes #mind #thoughts #ideas #doubt #uncertainty #reconsider #openminded #ideals

Dr. #HillaryCass #Backpedals From #Review: #HRT, #Blockers Should Be Made #Available.

Dr. Cass's latest #statements are likely to cast more #doubt on the #validity of the #study, which has come #underfire for #disregarding #substantial #evidence on #trans #healthcare

#Women #Transgender #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA #UK #Tories #TERFS #NHS #Hate #Bigotry #Discrimination #Transphobia #TERFIsland #TERFFails

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt