Reducing our cult-think means living with ambiguity during tumultuous times. But it’s worth the effort if we put a high value on truth.
Throughout human history we have faced many challenges, but the greatest danger of social disintegration was when lies and disinformation were accepted over the truth.
In other words, information becomes an asset in the service of economic growth—just like our very interactions with one another on social media have been turned into economic activity.
In addition to fostering communication and thinking skills, deliberation can lead to changes in how young people engage as learners and citizens.
We are ultimately telling children and teachers to slow down, to consume information more deliberately. Share more sparingly and stop and think before you do.
Welcome to the seductive, but regrettable world of unquestioned positive thinking, where faith healers, BS slingers, pseudoscientists, and get-rich-quick schemers all peddle the same basic message: think positively, and it’ll all work out.
The definition of freedom and liberty is always contested (at any given moment, people within a society disagree); always changing (over time, societies’ understandings will shift); and always conflicted (we struggle because there are no simple policies to maximize liberty).
We are mutilating the wonder and curiosity inherent in us in order to mute the horror of participating in a culture that harms everything it touches. We are teaching our children exactly the opposite of what they need to learn.
The Pandemic Armchair Philosophy Blog welcomes the beginning of the end of the COVID-19 crisis, but a “return to normal” should refocus us on a long list of global climate emergencies, social injustices, and tottering democratic institutions.
Having a list of books that everyone more or less agrees that young people should read in school doesn’t just provide a common ground of ideas that fosters communication; it doesn’t just help budding readers find really good books to read; it also teaches them how to think.
In discussing climate change and all our other eco-social predicaments, how does one distinguish accurate information from statements intended to elicit either false hope or needless capitulation to immediate and utter doom? And, in cases where pessimistic outlooks do seem securely rooted in evidence, how does one psychologically come to terms with the information?
We need unapproved thoughts just now. The approved thoughts, the right answers, the canned responses and parroted arguments are the things that have landed us in our present predicament.