I especially liked Kant’s quote “Have the courage to use your own understanding!” My father always said “I know what the book says, what do you think?” Many were unable to respond. He was an elementary school teacher.
Yes, I have come to think of him as a Stoic. He did read the Socratic dialogues by Plato, but he never mentioned Epictetus. I have always had a great deal of respect for him.
Most people in the 20th century were unaware of Epictetus, including me. He was a household name until the 19th century, and hopefully he will be again.
"Whoever wishes to avoid personal engagement with the matter... denies themselves the possibility of genuine insight and new knowledge." This understates the harm done. I'm now seen in online discussions, where I spend far too much time, bumpersticker assemblages of arguments in favour of creationist pseudoscience. or Christian Nationalist pseudohistory, which are obviously derived from a range of sources far beyond the comprehension of the individuals posting the material. So not only are such users missing out on genuine engagement, but they themselves believe, on the basis of these regurgitated gobbets, that they have mastered the arguments, and so I fear will their approving readers
Agreed, there is more going on than just people denying themselves the possibility of knowledge. There is harm done to others, and a general descent into superstition, which has historically never been a good thing.
I especially liked Kant’s quote “Have the courage to use your own understanding!” My father always said “I know what the book says, what do you think?” Many were unable to respond. He was an elementary school teacher.
Yes, I have come to think of him as a Stoic. He did read the Socratic dialogues by Plato, but he never mentioned Epictetus. I have always had a great deal of respect for him.
Paul, your father asked good questions.
Most people in the 20th century were unaware of Epictetus, including me. He was a household name until the 19th century, and hopefully he will be again.
"Whoever wishes to avoid personal engagement with the matter... denies themselves the possibility of genuine insight and new knowledge." This understates the harm done. I'm now seen in online discussions, where I spend far too much time, bumpersticker assemblages of arguments in favour of creationist pseudoscience. or Christian Nationalist pseudohistory, which are obviously derived from a range of sources far beyond the comprehension of the individuals posting the material. So not only are such users missing out on genuine engagement, but they themselves believe, on the basis of these regurgitated gobbets, that they have mastered the arguments, and so I fear will their approving readers
Agreed, there is more going on than just people denying themselves the possibility of knowledge. There is harm done to others, and a general descent into superstition, which has historically never been a good thing.