Updated Tidbits

Speed: 1.00

The latest 10 updated tidbits in about 10 minutes.

Idea 1.

A Philosophy Quote.

“People are disturbed not by the things that happen, but by their opinions about the things that happen.”.

Epictetus.
108 CE.

The following content is from chapter 13 of 30 Philosophers.

Perhaps Zeno’s principle that captured the stoic stereotype best is emotional resilience. Stoicism teaches that you must accept the circumstances of your life, even while attempting to better it. Rather than throwing a pity party when something bad happens, you accept it and just move forward. By embracing the reality of your situation and recognizing the limits of your influence, you can get the most out of life.

For example, when something bad happens in life…if you give up and throw yourself a pity party, you’ve already lost. If you do something, anything, then at least you have a chance. Choose a better path, do even better. What Zeno noticed is that people who marched forward in the face of life’s challenges did better. Not just in the game of life, but for themselves. They actually felt better, and he wanted to cultivate that ability and maximize it.

Emotional resilience is about recognizing that inflection point. It’s about maximizing whatever opportunities are in front of you, and reframing challenges, so you can navigate them with inner peace.

One final example, the phrase “fake it, until you make it,” suggests that if you want to be in a good mood, begin by attempting to be in a good mood. Conversely, when you start to feel sorry for yourself, it’s possible to spiral. The term “spiraling” is often used to describe an emotional downward spiral. Emotional resilience is the idea that you catch that spiraling, stop it, and turn it around.

I wrote that Philosophy Quote,

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

Idea 2.

A History FAQ.

What is the history of the idea of flourishing in philosophy?.

For more than two thousand years, one of the great questions in Western philosophy has been simple to ask and hard to answer:

What is the good life?

The ancient Greeks often framed the question around a telos, an ultimate end or goal. Aristotle’s answer was eudaimonia, a flourishing in my writing. He was not talking about a happy mood. He meant living and functioning well across a complete life through virtue and wisdom.

The philosophers who followed did not simply abandon the question; they argued over what flourishing required. The Stoics tied eudaimonia to virtue and living in accordance with nature. Epicurus put pleasure at the center, but not reckless indulgence. Same broad question. Very different answers.

Modern philosophy shifted the emphasis. Kant put moral duty and universal principles ahead of simply pursuing happiness, although happiness never disappeared. Bentham and Mill turned attention toward consequences and overall welfare. Later, ethics was increasingly organized around competing approaches such as duty and consequences, while the older question of character and the flourishing life moved more into the background. Then, beginning in the late 1950s, virtue ethics came roaring back.

The virtue revival continues today. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum developed the Capabilities Approach, shifting attention toward the real opportunities people have to live lives they have reason to value. Psychology and social science have also begun measuring flourishing through things like health, relationships, and functioning well. This is where TST enters the long story. I am not inventing flourishing out of thin air. TST inherits one of philosophy’s oldest answers and extends its scope to flourishing for all.

I wrote that History FAQ,

and posted it to TST 2 weeks ago.

Idea 3.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

Why do we struggle to recognize the limits of our own thinking?.

We struggle because confidence feels like control. Once an idea helps us make sense of the world, we naturally want to defend it. But real self-command, real agency, requires knowing where our thinking ends and uncertainty begins.

Your awareness of conceptual boundaries is a core part of viewpoint prevention. Viewpoint prevention is the avoiding of bad thinking, the prevention of a rigid worldview — a key idea of the Open Viewpoint Method (OVM). Boundaries mark the point where our best models stop making reliable claims and humility becomes mandatory. Recognizing that line is not weakness. It is one way we take control of our thinking.

Science does this well. When explanations fail, such as at the Planck scale, limits are acknowledged. Physicists do not force certainty where their tools stop working. They mark the boundary and proceed carefully.

In political, social, and personal thinking, we often do the opposite. We push certainty past what evidence can support, treating belief as explanation and confidence as proof. Once that happens, disagreement hardens, identities form around models, and communication breaks down.

Recognizing boundaries does not weaken truth. It protects it. And on a personal level, it rebuilds agency. The moment you can say, “I do not know enough yet,” you are no longer trapped by the need to be right. You are free to think better, choose better, and take control of your next response.

I wrote that Critical Thinking FAQ,

and posted it to TST 7 months ago.

Idea 4.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

What’s the difference between intentional change and wishful thinking?.

Intentional change is causal. It alters behavior, constraints, feedback loops, and environments. Wishful thinking, by contrast, changes language and intent, but leaves the underlying system untouched. Hoping reality will change around you is not a good path to success.

This type of thinking reminds me of wishful thinking, the planning fallacy, and magical thinking. With the wishful thinking fallacy, desire is mistaken for evidence; with the planning fallacy, effort and friction are consistently underestimated; and with the therapeutic idea of magical thinking, thoughts or declarations are treated as if they directly cause outcomes. In each case, intent is quietly confused with causation.

This matters because it connects directly to three deeper problems of habit, storytelling, and avoidance. When we mistake habit for choice, we assume we’re deciding when we’re actually repeating. When we mistake self-stories for truth, we edit the past to protect identity rather than updating it with evidence. And when we avoid better questions, we miss out on the only tool capable of interrupting autopilot in the moment it matters.

Critical thinking begins when we stop asking what we want to change and start asking what actually causes change.

I wrote that Critical Thinking FAQ,

and posted it to TST 8 months ago.

Idea 5.

A Philosophy Term.

Worldview.

A worldview is your lens. How you interpret the world. Worldviews can be abstracted through three major frameworks: personal language, personal religion, and personal philosophy. Your personal language shapes how words and categories live inside you. Your personal religion shapes how you approach meaning, mystery, the unknown, and the unknowable. Your personal philosophy shapes how you reason, judge, value, and decide how to live.

Impermanence runs through everything, and that includes your worldview. Your worldview is not fixed. You can challenge, reshape, and redefine inherited beliefs and values. You don’t just have a worldview, you have control of its evolving frameworks.

Worldview is related to identity, but they are not the same. Your worldview is how you interpret reality. Your identity is how you understand yourself within that reality. The two influence each other constantly. Change your worldview, and your identity will shift. Change your identity, and the world will look different.

I wrote that Philosophy Term,

and posted it to TST 3 months ago.

Idea 6.

A Science Story.

Early Self-Awareness: Miacis.

50 Million Years Ago

Territory memory, where things are, hippocampus development

Emerging in the lush forests of the Eocene, Miacis represents a useful waypoint in the evolution of increasingly complex mammalian cognition. This small early carnivoraform lived an active life navigating its environment, finding prey, avoiding danger, and controlling a highly mobile body. By this time, mammals were developing and elaborating many of the cognitive abilities associated with proto-self-awareness. Not the full reflective self-awareness seen in some living animals, but more basic forms of awareness involving a self moving through the world.

The modern view is that animal cognition was not a simple one-species aware/not-aware divide. Evolution was more experimental than that. Different lineages developed different pieces of the puzzle at different times and to different degrees. This type of early or proto-self-awareness does not mean looking inward and thinking things like “I am me.” It refers to more basic layers of self-related awareness: distinguishing one’s body from the surrounding world, tracking one’s position and movement, responding to internal states, remembering actions, and separating self-caused events from events caused by the environment. These abilities are not reflective self-awareness, but rather small steps along the cognitive journey. Think loosely of the differences in cognitive abilities among a mouse, a cat or dog, an elephant, or a dolphin—not as a single evolutionary ladder, but as different degrees and combinations of increasingly sophisticated cognition.

I wrote that Science Story,

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

Idea 7.

A Philosophy Term.

Eternal Recurrence.

Eternal recurrence is a traditional term inside Nietzsche’s philosophy. In its classic form, it asks you to imagine your life, exactly as you are living it, repeating, over and over. The point is not to throw you into existential crisis, per se. The deeper challenge is personal: could you say yes to your life if you had to live it again?

In 30 Philosophers, the Nietzsche Authentic Recipe is presented as a way to strip away deception and build a more authentic existence. It fits inside that recipe as a test. It asks whether the life you are living, the choice you are making, or the pattern you are repeating is something you could honestly affirm, over and over, forever. The book uses the example of going to church, forever. If that excites you, keep going to church; but if it doesn’t, perhaps it’s time to examine who you want to become.

In TST, the eternal recurrence tool is a common floor for testing authenticity within TST Ethics, and a hook into Nietzschean thought. It belongs inside personal morality, specifically within the authentic-self branch. It is the authenticity test. It helps you examine your choices, habits, relationships, work, and life direction. If you would be horrified to repeat a pattern forever, it may be pointing to a false life, a borrowed script, or a self you are performing instead of becoming.

The eternal recurrence gives people a powerful tool they can use without becoming Nietzschean. Would I choose this again? Is this action part of a life I can honestly affirm? It opens the door to his larger concern with life affirmation, self-overcoming, and the courage to create a life that is truly your own.

I wrote that Philosophy Term,

and posted it to TST 3 months ago.

Idea 8.

A Science FAQ.

Can anything travel faster than light?.

Yes, the universe itself is. And, lots of matter within it is moving away from each other at “speeds” faster than light. However, travelling for us is limited by the universal speed limit. It’s not the speed of light, it’s really about the speed of causation, a fundamental limit built into spacetime. So, any discussion of speed needs to define movement and domain. It’s all relative.

Let’s explore and make sense of this.

Let’s start with our part of the universe. No, I’m not talking about Earth or our solar system. Heck, I’m not even talking about the Milky Way Galaxy. I’m starting with the Local Group. Our gravitationally bound corner of the universe. The material we are travelling with through space, nearly forever. You may have heard of the three great galaxies: Andromeda, Triangulum, and our very own Milky Way. The three much larger galaxies among 100 plus galaxies.

What about the trillions of galaxies? Everything else in the universe is flying away from us at an average middle rate of about 2.5 times faster than the speed of light, faster than causation itself. Billions of years ago, that rate was lower. In billions of years, that rate will be higher. And, there will be a time in the future where intelligent life will claim there are only 100 or so galaxies, and nothing else. From our spacetime point now, we know that’s wrong.

So, within our Local Group, travelling is limited by the universal speed limit. What most people call the speed of light. But the so-called “speed of light” isn’t really about light at all. It’s the speed of causation, a fundamental limit built into spacetime itself as seen “within” our Local Group and throughout the universe.

I wrote that Science FAQ,

and posted it to TST 1 month ago.

Idea 9.

A Philosophy FAQ.

Why do people confuse explanations with reality?.

Because explanations soothe us.

A good explanation feels solid. It gives shape to chaos. It reduces uncertainty. In that relief, we begin to treat the explanation as if it were the thing itself. Ancient traditions called this maya — the veil of appearance. Modern psychology calls it cognitive bias. Either way, the mind prefers coherence over confusion. When a model works well enough, we stop seeing it as a model.

Our brains are prediction machines. We don’t experience raw reality — we experience interpretations shaped by things like language, memory, expectation, and culture. Confirmation bias rewards us for defending our existing map. The illusion of explanatory depth makes us believe we understand far more than we do. Over time, the framework becomes invisible. We no longer see it as a lens — we see it as the world.

That is why intellectual humility matters. Socrates famously claimed wisdom in knowing that he did not know. Not because knowledge is impossible, but because our explanations are always partial. In my writing, the correction is not the opposite extreme of cynicism. It is disciplined modesty. Reality remains what it is. Our descriptions are attempts, attempts that are sometimes brilliant, sometimes flawed, but they are always representations and provisional.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ,

and posted it to TST 7 months ago.

Idea 10.

A Philosophy FAQ.

What is the difference between secular and public spirituality?.

This difference is subtle, but important.

Public spirituality is the spirituality currently accepted within a society, culture, institution, or tribe. It is the spiritual “state of the union” for a group. In one society, public spirituality might center on religion, scripture, and sacred authority. In another, it might center on nature, meditation, or human flourishing. Public spirituality is not automatically true. It is the spiritual portion of public belief: what a group carries, teaches, practices, tolerates, or treats as normal.

Secular spirituality is spirituality guided by alignment with nature, not the supernatural. It explores many of the same things, but it does not require a church, scripture, deity, afterlife, or hidden realms. It is not anti-religious. It simply says spirituality can stand on common ground in this life and this world.

So public spirituality asks:

“What kinds of spirituality are accepted here?”

Secular spirituality asks:

“Can spirituality be grounded in nature without the supernatural?”

Both can explore metaphysics and ontology: What is reality? What kind of universe are we in? What does it mean that I am here now — aware, temporary, and responsible?

The difference is the role of social acceptance versus reality-alignment. Public spirituality describes what a group currently carries as spiritual belief and practice. Secular spirituality describes spirituality disciplined by this world, this life, and reality as best we can understand it.