You mention both “local” and “cosmic” unfairness, but the body of the post appears to focus solely on the “cosmic”, to its detriment. The challenges of Dostoevsky (or Qureshi-Hurst, but I am not familiar with her work) are not about whether “cosmic” unfairness can have some rationale, but about this suffering person here—and for that person, notions of some “Divine Plan” (in whatever terms we may conceive of such) do not provide any relief. Religions that include belief in such things as angels or Divine incarnations face an even more stark problem from the lack of intervention; or rather, the lack of inconsistent intervention, by those spiritual powers.
UnderTruth
Karma: 39
A thought for a possible “version 2” would be to make them capable of reporting a push via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to track the action the button represents.
It seems one is missing: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness”.
And it is worth noting that there are, of course, many previous expositions on the Beatitudes, which, along with the expected focus on eternal rewards as outranking earthly ones, often provide additional insights, like how the “pure in heart” merit to “see God” because “purity” here means something like “singular focus”, which has analogical application to being single-mindedly devoted to a cause, etc.
It is worth noting that, in the religious tradition from which the story originates, it is Moses who commits these previously-oral stories to writing, and does so in the context of a continued oral tradition which is intended to exist in parallel with the writings. On their own, the writings are not meant to be complete, both in order to limit more advanced teachings to those deemed ready for them, as well as to provide occasion to seek out the deeper meanings, for those with the right sort of character to do so.
This would seem related to the notion that “Nature abhors a vacuum”, and to the thesis of ‘Meditations on Moloch’, and to Ilya Prigogine’s concept of “Dissipative Structures”… Perhaps one could simply say that it is a natural result of the interplay between entropy and various systems which ‘fight’ against it.
It may be worth noting that traditionally, Jesus is depicted as being in agreement with Siddhartha here, having emptied Hades before exiting the tomb alive again. This is further emphasized in a sermon preached ~1600 years ago by John Chrysostom, and repeated every Easter in Orthodox (& some Catholic) churches, which includes the line “Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.” Though in combination with other beliefs about Hades/Hell, it seems the intended meaning is that everyone was/is given the option to “ascend”, but perhaps not everyone chooses to take it.
You seem to have arrived at the classical concept of “the four loves”, referring to the four Greek words commonly translated as “love” in English:
στοργή :: natural, familial affinity
φιλία :: interest/enjoyment as coming from a free & rational agent
ἔρως :: craving for unity with what is “beloved”
ἀγάπη :: “to will the good of the other”
Somewhere I have old notes that link them together in a reasonable way, but I would have to dig that up later, if you would be interested.
As someone diagnosed with ADHD only recently, as an adult, I can relate to having mental energy that is highly variable, and to having intellectual pursuits which are largely dependent on this energy. It would seem the vast majority of active participants on this website have no kids, so I thought it would be worthwhile to add my perspective, having 3 of my own, in my early 30s. Prior to having kids, I would often stay up until ~2am, deep in some sort of research, and occasionally stay up all night, tracking down and reading articles pertinent to my topic. Often, I would have a “crash” day, sleeping ~14 hours one day of the weekend.
After having kids, inertia kept my habits up for a while, but the all-nighters went away, and the 2am bedtime shifted closer to 11pm. (Total hours spent sleeping, of course, were lower, in spite of this, due to nighttime feedings.) With making up for sleep on the weekend becoming (understandably) less tolerable for my spouse, and having children who wake up ~6am or earlier and require an adult to be awake with them, regularity of time was imposed. But my mental energy still followed its own pattern. Melatonin has been helpful in forcing a “shut down sequence” on my mind before bed.
After being diagnosed and beginning medication, I have (aside from temporary side-effects from medications that were not ideally suited for me) found myself much more able to both apply a consistent level of energy to both professional and personal projects, as well as to keep a consistent bedtime, typically without the need for melatonin to “force” it. It also helps that our youngest is finally sleeping through the night consistently. Recently, I have even been considering waking up ~5am, to get some of the time back, after a night of good sleep. I plan to experiment with this, and see how it goes.
Behind these changes, it is difficult to disentangle from each other the effects of the child-imposed schedule, the medication, and simply the advance of time/age. How much people should try to change themselves to fit their circumstances, and how much people should try to change their circumstances to fit themselves, remains an open question for me. But those who choose to submit themselves to the needs of others in the ways that family life requires can still find time & energy for their pursuits… At least once the baby is sleeping through the night.
Thank you for your reply and further explanation. Your examples are helpful, and on thinking about them, I’m led to wonder how these & other “techniques” serve the distinct goals of “Trying to arrive at The True Answer”, “Trying to show this person that they have incoherent beliefs, because they have failed to properly examine them”, and “Trying to converse in a manner that will engage this person, so that it has some real, hopefully positive, effect for them”—and possibly others.
I think I am unclear on whether this approach differs from a more traditional “Socratic” style dialogue, and if so, in what ways. Could you clarify?
Another thought that this post brings out, is that while I think techniques of this sort are useful in a number of ways, even beyond the direct dialogue itself (for example, in practicing the kind of lateral and analogy-based thinking required to fluidly keep up with the conversation while maintaining this style), there is clearly a limited set of opportunities for which they are suitable. Do you know of any existing “taxonomy” of conversational methods, classified with respect to the circumstances in which they are most effective?
As a parent of young children, I often consider this very dilemma. In addition, as the other comments describe, there are several other dimensions along which a parent must optimize:
Things that may broadly “give” to oneself (Sleep, exercise, fulfillment of “vocation”, hobbies, etc) vs Things that may broadly “take” from oneself (Basic care for kids, the kinds of play that may not interest the parent, drudgery of “work”, chores, etc)
Disciplinary style & social environment within the family (A two-dimensional area ranging from Harsh to Permissive on one axis, and Compassionate to Disinterested on the other)
Aiming at Stability vs Encouraging of Change (Applicable to childcare, school, location of home, which sport one signs them up for next year, etc)
Culture (A two-dimensional area ranging from Providing a Culture to Letting them Loose, one one axis ((That is, does one instill some tradition intentionally, or, since we each have the influence of a cultural background, does one actively avoid doing so?)), and Suppressing Questioning to Encouraging Asking ‘Why?’ on the other)
Time & Money (Unless one is particularly rich or poor, one must trade the opportunities afforded by working longer hours to earn more against the opportunities afforded by those specific hours. This is made all the more acute by the non-fungible nature of the hours of our lives.)
And so on...
This is a place where I find traditional wisdom to be useful, since the constraints and values faced by parents have been largely the same since the invention of writing. (At least, for those who could write.) Consulting a variety of such works, both those which address the topic of parenting directly, as well as those which do so obliquely (typically narrative fiction of particular importance or cautionary tales), one can form generally-useful views, even if none seem universally-and-definitely useful.
Though I admit to thinking about this in this level of detail only as a result of your post, the main such points, 18 of them, in my view, are perhaps the following:
One must have a general awareness of what the needs and capabilities of a child are, across their development. Do not expect from them those things of which they are not capable.
When children make mistakes, their parents should encourage them to “pick themselves back up”, whether a skill or moral mistake was made. (Note that it is the child’s self that they should “pick back up”; the activity they were doing may or may not be worth trying again.)
The goal is to “raise” one’s children into adults, so there can be no question of whether they are exposed to the things one is averse to in the world, but only of when and how. And because they are those things one is averse to in the world, they have a tendency to make themselves known sooner than one would like to discuss them.
Traditional constellations of the “virtues” provide a foundation of dispositions worth instilling in one’s children in order to prepare them for the interactions that will make up most of their experience.
A thirst to understand begins in experiences that capture a child’s attention and inspire a lasting sense of wonder. (Adapted from Aristotle)
A human must be taught, either by direct experience or by direct communication, everything they come to know. Help them have the experience and teaching they need, either from yourself or from others. Given this is so, do not express disturbance when they ask frank questions about any topic. (They will!)
Everything else one learns is built upon the fundamentals (things like phonics, writing/typing, logic, and basic math, yes, but also ability to control one’s body both to act and to not act, social skills, a mindset that does not easily give up, etc), so one should exert real effort to secure these in one’s children.
The aim of one’s life cannot be “all of the above”, and because the resources at one’s disposal are finite (time, money, energy, etc), whatever is not the primary aim will surely be reduced to support that primary aim. So if there is an “aim of one’s life” that the parents believe to be universally best, then the primary aim of their parenting must be to instill that life-aim in their children.
Those things which are both harmful and enjoyable are most to be defended against.
“Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired” (per Jonathan Swift), and neither will it (directly) correct ill behavior done out of “impulse”. Other methods are required.
Pain, generically of both the bodily and mental sorts, really is an effective teacher. One should note, however, that the lesson taught by the pain may be neither true nor useful, and if pain/unpleasantness is being used as a pedagogical tool by the parent, it may not teach the lesson intended in its application.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” In a similar sentiment, fairy-tales and myths may be literally false, but convey a lesson that is directionally true for a specific domain. (That is to say, for the “moral lesson of the story”.) And stories are a form of conveying information that is well-adapted to the human mind. Poetry and song, all the more.
The “mundane” things of life are such specifically because they are what constitute the majority of one’s experience. So the manner in which these take place has a lot of “experiential surface area” to affect one’s children.
Children look to their parents for love, acceptance, and comfort. Provide it to them. (This doesn’t require accepting all behaviors, nor does it require directly or partially lying to them about bad things that have happened or will happen.)
They also need basic physical provisions, like food, water, and shelter. Provide those things to them. If you are unable to do so directly, seek the help of those who are able.
They also look to their parents for direct modeling of behaviors, whether the parents, themselves, would want those behaviors imitated or not. “Actions speak louder than words.”
Parents must care for themselves in order to be able to care for their children, and so there must be resources (time, energy, money, etc) which are dedicated to this, and not to anything else. (This doesn’t mean one should neglect one’s children. And it is notoriously difficult to find a balance that would be generally considered “reasonable”. But, except where especially difficult circumstances obtain, such as severe medical, political, or other crises, it is possible to find a “dynamic equilibrium”. Perhaps the belief that one should pursue a static “balance” causes additional distress for some parents.)
One should try to make “maturity” a desirable goal for their children. Or perhaps it would be better to say that one should make continual growth & maintenance the paradigm for their children.
One note, based on my experience in across a variety of organizations, including holding a leadership role in a small political party, is that when a debate is “Free Flowing”, if it is taking place verbally (usually in-person or over video-call) the lack of definite structure and time-boxing can often lead to domination by whoever of the two or more interlocutors has either greater prowess in rhetorical skill, or is more willing to simply steamroll over the opportunity for the other to speak, or both. I think a balance may be struck by having structured rounds, with a pre-established limit for the number of claims each side may argue for or against, and then also allowing the debate to last some arbitrarily large number of rounds.
Much of the rest sounds desirable, though (as is also true of “Fact Checkers”) difficult to accomplish in a way which will satisfy all parties involved. Choosing someone or some group with a genuine openness to whatever the truth may be (or as close to that ideal as any person can have) is the most impactful action.
Does anyone here know of good examples of such forums for debate, either (recent) past or present?
Rot13: V gubhtug vg jbhyq or Znaan ol Znefunyy Oenva
I am reminded of this paper, on the equivalence of information-theoretic formalisms and those of physics. I am linking the paper here not as an endorsement, but because it may provide some unusual, but useful, lines of thought.