Sign In
Create Account
Sign Up
Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist • …
TST PRACTICE
Sign In

By Philosopher Michael Alan Prestwood

Sign In
Create Account
PRACTICE

TST: New Content, FAQs, Read-Aloud

Latest 5

The 5 latest stories.

One-minute tidbits.

Idea 1.

A Philosophy FAQ.

Does TST Philosophy handle facticity?.

Yes, the “givens” of life are handled under the circumstances framework. TST uses circumstances in place of facticity. Instead of treating all “given” facts as one bucket, TST distinguishes birth, past, current, and future. This gives the moral agent a clearer map of what was given, what cannot be changed, what can be influenced now, and what may be coming next.

Birth circumstances are the particular conditions into which you were born, including both your personal starting facts and the existential givens of being human.

What did I start with?

You did not choose your starting point: your body, ancestry, birthplace, early family, or the historical moment into which you arrived. These shape the field in which your life begins. A human baby can become an adult human, but not a tiger.

Past circumstances are the already-happened facts of your life.

What past experiences still influence me today?

You may reinterpret, learn, heal, or respond to them differently, but you cannot go back in time. They are part of the already-written portion of your life.

Current circumstances are the present conditions of your life.

What is true now, and what can I control, influence, accept, resist, or change?

A person exists in a current state, with properties, relationships, conditions, and constraints in place. They must be examined through the Dichotomy of Control. Some are outside your control and must be accepted or endured. Some are within your influence and can be guided, changed, improved, resisted, or left behind.

Future circumstances are the possible conditions you are moving toward.

What am I anticipating, fearing, or hoping for?

In TST, existential givens are a special subset of birth circumstances. They are the heart and soul of existentialism. The circumstances framework gives you overall control with special analysis of your existential givens.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 3 days ago.

 

Idea 2.

A Philosophy FAQ.

What does it mean to have honor?.

An honorable act is a virtuous one.

Being honorable is the habit of acting virtuous.

And honor is easy; it doesn’t cost you much. Honor at significant personal cost becomes noble. Something we all should strive for. Noble acts become heroic when they require extraordinary courage in the face of serious risk.

In philosophy, the term supererogatory is any good act that goes beyond what morality requires. Jumping into a river to save a stranger, donating a kidney. Those acts are more than decent and honorable.

Returning a wallet isn’t noble or heroic, but it is honorable: or simply your duty.

Acting with honor is the ordinary practice of virtue. Honor is not special. It includes simple things like: Tell the truth, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t gossip, be fair. None of those inherently require a sacrifice. Sometimes there is a small cost, such as embarrassment, inconvenience, or a few dollars, but honor doesn’t require sacrifice.

Refusing to obey an immoral command is honorable. Becoming a whistleblower is noble.

In my mantra, honor does heavy lifting:

Enjoy the journey, with truth and honor, causing no harm.

Honor includes things like integrity, trustworthiness, and fairness. It sits close to reputation and duty, but is different.

Reputation is what other people think of you. Honor is what type of person you actually are.

You can lose your reputation and your honor: a noble thing. Honor is also not the same as duty.

Duty is what you are supposed to do. Honor means refusing any duty that requires you to act without virtue. 

Finally, honor has nothing to do with loyalty; loyalty can be abused. Think about how Kamikaze pilots were misled into thinking that suicide was the highest form of honor.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 3 days ago.

 

Idea 3.

A Philosophy FAQ.

What is the difference between Stalinesque and Orwellian propaganda?.

While discussing memory in Daniel Dennett’s book Consciousness Explained, he used two types of propaganda that have stuck with me: Stalinesque and Orwellian. Both stem from the acts of men: Joseph Stalin’s show trials and George Orwell’s writing.

Stalinesque propaganda tries to create your first impression. Orwellian propaganda tries to replace it.

We see both around the world as various groups try to seize or keep power. Too often, they succeed in replacing reality with a false narrative.

Stalinesque propaganda was born out of Stalin’s infamous show trials. They used false testimony and evidence to prove predetermined conclusions. You see it today in American politics. When the Republican Party tried to overturn the 2020 election using alternate electors and certificates, that was Stalinesque. It was a fake show. They submitted their own people and papers. Another example occurred in August 2024 during the Republican impeachment of Joe Biden. Before the election, the FBI informant Alexander Smirnov literally made up evidence. After, he pleaded guilty to fabricating the whole thing. 

As Orwell imagined in 1984, Orwellian propaganda rewrites existing history. The events happened, but are rewritten to match a narrative. And the Republican Party also engages in this. They literally rewrite history. January 6 provides a clear Orwellian example. We have videos, court records, and convictions. Yet party leaders continue to describe the convicted and pardoned as patriots and hostages. Another example is when the Trump administration ordered agencies to remove established DEI, climate change, and other information. 

When the CDC rewrote their own autism-and-vaccine information, they were questioning long-established conclusions that vaccines do not cause autism. They did this even while another CDC page continued to state that studies show no association. That is about as literal as Orwellian rewriting gets!

Stalin created false stories; Orwell rewrote real ones.

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 3 days ago.

 

Idea 4.

A Philosophy FAQ.

When does persuasion become manipulation?.

Persuasion becomes manipulation when you stop respecting the other person’s agency. Persuasion says,

“Here is what I think, here are my reasons, and here is the evidence.”

Manipulation tries to control the outcome with thinking errors. It can use deception, selective facts, emotional pressure, fear, guilt, or other tricks designed to push someone toward a conclusion without giving them a fair chance to think it through for themselves.

The line is not always clean. All persuasion involves influence. We choose which facts to present, how to frame them, and which arguments we think are strongest. Emotion is not automatically manipulation either. A moving story can be perfectly honest. A useful test is to ask:

Am I helping this person understand my position, or am I trying to bypass their ability to decide for themselves?

If you have to hide facts, distort the opposing view, or knowingly mislead them to win, you have crossed the line.

Roger Williams gives us a good model. He argued hard and clearly believed other people were wrong, but liberty of conscience meant they still had the right to remain unconvinced. That is an important limit on persuasion. Make your case. Ask questions. Challenge ideas. Present the facts. But eventually, let the other person decide. 

I wrote that Philosophy FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 4 days ago.

 

Idea 5.

A Critical Thinking FAQ.

How can you tell when a debate has stopped being productive?.

A debate has usually stopped being productive when you are no longer examining the same claim. The conversation starts looping, goalposts move, old points are repeated, or one side refuses to acknowledge facts that have already been established. Personal attacks are another clue. Once the focus shifts from the idea to the person, you are often no longer evaluating anything. You are just fighting.

Another warning sign is that neither person is willing to update. Good debate requires at least some possibility that evidence, logic, or clarification could change your mind. If every answer simply creates another objection, or every fact is dismissed because it came from the “wrong” source, there may be nothing left to evaluate. At that point, continuing usually adds heat without adding understanding.

When that happens, exit cleanly. You can also say,

“I don’t think we’re getting anywhere, so I’m going to leave it here.”

I personally don’t favor that approach. It fails to pivot toward the relationship.

A common approach is to summarize where you agree, state where you still disagree, and stop without trying to land one final punch. Something as simple as,

“I think we understand each other’s positions, we just disagree, and that’s okay.”

That works surprisingly well. 

My dad’s advice was to change the subject. You can simply say,

“I’d like to stop now, how about we take a break from this, and talk about x.”

That’s my favorite because it frequently brings humanity back into the dialogue. When I can remember to do it, it has worked well. A good exit should protect the relationship and keep the door open for a better conversation later.

I wrote that Critical Thinking FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 4 days ago.

 

The end.

Scroll to Top