Posts

Such a concrete idea of things

 In Adlerian psychology, there are aspects that are antithetical to normal social thinking. It denies etiology, denies trauma, and adopts teleology. It treats people's problems as interpersonal relationship problems. The youth was devastated by the separation of tasks that the philosopher had begun describing. When one thought of all one's problems as being in one's interpersonal relationships, the separation of tasks was effective. Just by having this viewpoint, the world would become quite simple. But there was no flesh and blood in it. It gave off no sense of one's warmth as a person. Could anyone accept such a philosophy? The youth rose from his chair and pleaded loudly. Look, I have been dissatisfied for ages. The adults of the world tell the young people, Do something you like to do. And they say it with smiles on their faces as if they might actually be understanding people, as if they were on the side of the young. But it's all lip service, which comes out o

The skill to mold the material

 Social intelligence is the ability to see people in the most realistic light possible. Navigating smoothly through the social environment, we have more time and energy to focus on learning and acquiring skills. Success attained without this intelligence is not true mastery, and will not last. Instead of feeling complacent about what you know, you must expand your knowledge to related fields, giving your mind fuel to make new associations between different ideas. In the end, you will turn against the very rules you have internalized, shaping and reforming them to suit your spirit. Such originality will bring you to the heights of power. This intelligence is cultivated by deeply immersing ourselves in a field of study and staying true to our inclinations, no matter how unconventional our approach might seem to others. This power is what our brains were designed to attain, and we will be naturally led to this type of intelligence if we follow our inclinations to their ultimate ends.  We

Reason should not be silenced

 We can use the Internet to facilitate encounters with opposing views, such as by joining deliberative groups of people whom we would rarely encounter otherwise or by deploying digital tools, such as Reddit's thread called ChangeMyView. The goal is not to get everyone to agree. How boring that would be! Diversity of opinion invigorates and illuminates. Nor is the goal to make us open to all other positions. We should not be willing to move to a new position that is clearly mistaken. Instead, the goal is to remain civil, understand opponents, and learn from them even when they are mistaken. Of course, there is no guarantee that mixed groups who deliberate will arrive at mutual respect, much less the truth or the best policies. Some risk of error is unavoidable. Still, reasoning with opponents gives us more chance of arriving at mutual understanding and respect as well as true beliefs and good policies. If reason should not be silenced, do we have to talk about controversial issues a