Sign In
Subscribe

Explore Natural Philosophy
Sign In
Subscribe Free
DAILY
DAILY
Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist • …

Updated Tidbits

The latest 10 updated tidbits in about 10 minutes.

1.

Philosophy FAQ.

Can Carl Jung’s shadow work help us think well?.

Jung helps you understand the stories rising from within you; TST helps you decide how much truth those stories deserve.

Carl Jung’s idea of the shadow points to the parts of ourselves we would rather not see. These can include fear, anger, shame, selfishness, insecurity, resentment, and even hidden strengths we have pushed aside. Shadow work begins with a simple but difficult act:

Stop pretending your inner life is cleaner than it is.

That fits nicely within critical thinking and philosophy because both require self-honesty. If your hidden fears are steering your beliefs, you are not really following reason. If your resentment is choosing your facts, you are not seeking truth. These are mind traps in motion: biases, shortcuts, emotional reactions, and distorted stories quietly shaping what feels true. Jung gives us language for the inner fog; critical thinking gives us tools for testing what comes out of it.

But shadow work has limits. A dream, symbol, or emotional reaction can reveal something meaningful, but meaning is not the same as truth. Your feelings may point toward a real wound, a distorted memory, a useful insight, or a false story your mind has been repeating for years. Critical thinking asks us to slow down and sort the claim: What is empirical? What is rational? What is speculation?

So yes, Jung’s shadow work can help us think well—when we use it as a doorway, not a verdict. It can help us notice what we are avoiding, soften our ego, and see the mind traps shaping our inner story. Then critical thinking takes the next step: calibrate the story, test the belief, and bring the self back into better alignment with reality.

 


That Philosophy FAQ, 

was first published on TST 2 months ago.

2.

Philosophy Quote.

“We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe.”.

  • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr..
  • 1858.

Here is the full Holmes quote from 1858:

“We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the record may seem superficial, but it is indelible.”

Holmes raises an important point about the origins of our personalities, reminding us that initially we are formed by those raising us in a particular setting at a particular time. This quote is used in chapter 7 of 30 Philosophers to explore our worldview and identity. Chapter 7 invites readers to reflect on their inherited beliefs and consider how understanding their roots can lead to a more authentic and examined life. After all, growth begins when we move beyond the “indelible” tattoos of our tribe to embrace a broader understanding of ourselves and the world.

Your worldview is your outward lens on the world. Your identity is how you see yourself within that world.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. spent much of his time pondering the profound truth that from the moment we are born, we are imprinted with the cultural norms, beliefs, and values of the society around us. These “tattoos” shape us, influencing how we see the world and our place within it. While these beliefs may appear superficial—mere traditions or assumptions—they often lie deeply rooted in our subconscious, quietly steering our actions and decisions.

Your initial worldview and identity is imprinted upon you starting at birth, but it is not your destiny.

Your starting foundation becomes the lens through which you interpret life, and it requires deliberate effort to critically evaluate and potentially reshape.

 


That Philosophy Quote, 

was first published on TST 2 years ago.

3.

Philosophy FAQ.

How does TST Ethics handle the trolley problem?.

The traditional trolley problem asks a brutal question: if a runaway trolley will kill five strangers unless you pull a lever that redirects it toward one stranger, should you do it? In its classic form, it is a numbers problem wrapped in moral tension. Do you act and cause one death, or do nothing and allow five?

TST Ethics starts with its recipe:

Group ethics guides. Personal morality chooses. Act with good intent. Weigh the result. Adjust.

So let’s start with the group ethics layer. Clearly, killing one person is better than killing five. The next major question is whether letting something happen and doing something should be treated as ethically equal. In a binary decision like this, it is logical to treat doing and not doing as ethically equivalent choices. So, in the clean thought experiment, group ethics points toward pulling the lever and choosing the lesser harm.

But group ethics only guides. Personal morality still has to choose. Do you follow the group standard or not? In a purely hypothetical case, the guidance points toward following group ethics unless you have a reason not to. But that ambiguity is part of the problem.

In this case, unless you have a reason not to, TST Ethics asks you to follow group ethics and choose to kill less people.

However, reality is never as neat as philosophy class. What if the person on the side track is your child? Real decisions happen in messy reality, not sterile thought experiments. If someone chose to save their wife or child rather than five strangers, TST would not remove the moral burden, but it would recognize the human reality behind it.

 


That Philosophy FAQ, 

was first published on TST 4 months ago.

4.

Philosophy Term.

Dichotomy of Control.

The Dichotomy of Control separates what is yours to control from what is not.

A traditional term, chapter 13 of 30 Philosophers defined it like this:

“Dichotomy of Control is the idea that things are either within your control, or not.”

In modern use, the idea is best understood as a control filter. Before reacting, ask: What part of this is mine to govern? You may not control the weather, the past, another person’s mood, or the final outcome of a difficult conversation. But you can usually control your preparation, words, restraint, effort, and next action.

Within TST Ethics, the Dichotomy of Control is part of the Virtue Framework which is used within both Personal Morality and Group Ethics. It teaches self-command and helps build character. Functionally, it is the first step of both the Personal Morality Recipe and the Group Ethics Recipe.

Within personal morality, this matters because it directs your actual choice. Group Ethics can guide you toward shared standards, but in the moment, you still must decide what you are going to do. In a conflict, the group may agree that honesty, fairness, and restraint matter. But you still must decide whether to tell the truth, act fairly, and restrain your anger. The Dichotomy of Control asks you to govern yourself first, so your actions can better support flourishing for all.

Historically, the Dichotomy of Control is best remembered through Epictetus and later Stoic practice. Its core insight has traveled far beyond ancient philosophy. A modern echo appears in recovery culture through the Serenity Prayer:

Accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and seek the wisdom to know the difference.

This simple discipline helps you stop wasting yourself on what is not yours to control. Focus on what is yours to govern, then act with truth, restraint, courage, and honor.

 


That Philosophy Term, 

was first published on TST 2 weeks ago.

5.

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 the wishful thinking fallacy, where desire is mistaken for evidence; the planning fallacy, where effort and friction are consistently underestimated; and the therapeutic idea of magical thinking, where 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. We mistake habit for choice, assuming we’re deciding when we’re actually repeating. We mistake self-stories for truth, editing the past to protect identity rather than updating it with evidence. And we avoid better questions, which are often the only tools 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.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 6 months ago.

6.

Philosophy Term.

Impermanence.

Impermanence is the truth that reality is always changing. Everything flows. Everything shifts. Stars are born and die. Bodies age. Emotions rise and fade. Civilizations emerge, transform, and collapse. Even the self you carry through life is not frozen in place.

In 30 Philosophers, impermanence is one of the book’s core threads. In the East, Buddhism and other traditions use impermanence to show why attachment causes suffering. In the West, Heraclitus gives us flux: the world as an ever-changing river. You cannot step into the same river twice, because the river has changed, and so have you.

In philosophy, impermanence can be used as a grounding idea. Reality is not static. It is a self-reconfiguring process. Matter and energy do not appear from the void and vanish back into it. They rearrange. Patterns form, dissolve, and reform. What we call a thing is often a temporary stability inside a larger flow.

This matters because much of human suffering comes from treating temporary things as permanent. We cling to youth, certainty, identity, status, relationships, institutions, and old versions of ourselves. Impermanence does not tell us to stop loving life. It tells us to love it honestly, knowing it moves.

 


That Philosophy Term, 

was first published on TST 1 month ago.

7.

Critical Thinking Story.

Cognitive Biases.

Maya, Illusion.

30 Philosophers, Chapter 14, Badarayana, Touchstone 37: Cognitive Biases. 

Cognitive biases are systematic distortions in judgment that arise when the mind simplifies complexity. They are not signs of stupidity; they are shortcuts that once helped survival but now often mislead reasoning. Identified and formalized in modern psychology, cognitive biases reveal predictable patterns in human error.

Within the TST Framework, cognitive biases are classified as one of the Four Mind Traps — mental tendencies that distort perception and inflate confidence. The other traps are stereotypes, logical fallacies, and heuristics. Recognizing bias is not about self-condemnation; it is about disciplined calibration.

 


That Critical Thinking Story, 

was first published on TST 2 years ago.

8.

Critical Thinking FAQ.

Why do people confuse rule-following with moral reasoning?.

Humans rely on rules because rules simplify decision-making. In complex societies, laws provide structure and predictability. But when rules are treated as moral substitutes rather than tools, people stop thinking and start deferring. This is where rule-following quietly replaces moral reasoning.

One core mind trap at work is authority bias—the tendency to assume that decisions made by an authority figure or system are inherently correct. When combined with moral outsourcing, individuals shift responsibility away from themselves and onto the rulebook. If the rule allows it, the thinking goes, then it must be right. Judgment is no longer required.

This is how context disappears. Absolutist thinking flattens moral landscapes into binaries: legal or illegal, allowed or forbidden. Nuance, intent, proportionality, and harm are pushed aside. Complex moral hierarchies collapse into slogans like “rules are rules,” which feel firm but explain nothing.

The danger is not ignorance—it’s abdication. When people say “I’m just following the law,” they are not making a moral claim; they are avoiding one. As Hannah Arendt famously observed in her analysis of bureaucratic evil, systems don’t require monstrous individuals—only people willing to stop judging their own actions.

Rules are necessary. Judgment is indispensable. When judgment is surrendered to authority, responsibility dissolves—and history shows us exactly where that leads.

 


That Critical Thinking FAQ, 

was first published on TST 5 months ago.

9.

Philosophy Quote.

“Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”.

  • Thomas Gray.
  • 1742.

Content based on chapter 7 of 30 Philosophers.

Since I was a child, I have been exploring the dichotomy between ignorance and knowledge. I remember people saying things like, “I like hot dogs, but no one wants to see how they’re made.” When I found out, I was like, yeah, who wants to know that! The end product is delicious.

In 2000, when The Matrix movie came out, the phrase “Ignorance is bliss” became part of the common parlance. 

The Matrix movies cover this topic well, particularly through the character Cypher, who betrays his crew in exchange for the promise of a return to the illusion of the Matrix. He knows the truth but prefers the comforting deception of the simulation over the harsh reality of the real world. His perspective raises an interesting question: If knowing the truth causes suffering, is it better to remain ignorant?

In researching 30 Philosophers, I dug into its origins. Turns out it came from an 18th-century English poet, Thomas Gray. In his 1742 poem Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College, he reflects on the carefree days of youth, where ignorance shields children from the troubles of the adult world. The famous line—”Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”—suggests that awareness of life’s hardships brings sorrow. But was Gray advocating for ignorance? Not quite. His poem is more of a nostalgic lament than an argument for avoiding knowledge.

I explore the dichotomy between ignorance and true knowledge in chapter 7 of 30 Philosophers. You see the illusions of reality explored in Eastern philosophies like Hinduism and Buddhism as maya, a veil of deception hiding the true nature of existence. In the West, Socrates was an early skeptic, questioning everything. His student Plato’s famous allegory of the cave is another take on this theme. In the story, prisoners mistake shadows on a wall for reality. When one escapes and sees the real world, he returns to enlighten the others—only to be ridiculed and rejected. Sometimes, knowledge is a burden, and those who seek it are met with resistance.

So, does wisdom bring suffering? Or is it a necessary step toward a more meaningful existence? In 30 Philosophers, I argue that this dichotomy is a must-part of everyone’s worldview. I use the example of germaphobes and the fact that a certain amount of ignorance could lead to a better life. In contrast, throughout the book, I talk about how the illusions of life are just fine if you’re happy, but if you’re not, removing some of the illusions, with a focus on social constructs, can help you live a happier life, by living your authentic self.

 


That Philosophy Quote, 

was first published on TST 1 year ago.

10.

Spirituality Story.

Self & Non-Self; Atman & Anatman.

Atman, the idea of self.
Anatman, the idea of non-self.

30 Philosophers, Chapter 6, Buddhism, Touchstone 15: Illusion: Self and Non-self. 

The terms Atman and Anatman relate to the idea of Self and the Buddhist doctrine of Non-Self. To understand non-self, understand emptiness as the idea that nothing exists permanently.

Self is expressed in Eastern thought as Atman, the true deeper soul. Your surface self changes, but Atman is the enduring reality within. Your soul. In some schools, like Advaita Vedanta, Atman is ultimately connected to Brahman, the deepest reality of all. This is where Buddhism turns.

Non-Self is the Buddhist insight of Anatman. Buddhism does not deny that you exist. You are still here, thinking, loving, and suffering. But it challenges the deeper claim of a permanent I. In Buddhism, the flame of life is real, but always changing.

Atman and Anatman, Self and Non-Self, work together. In Buddhism, the mistake is that we grip the self as permanent. We say this is me, this is mine, this is who I am, and then we suffer when life proves otherwise. The Buddhist path loosens that grip. It asks us to see that while the self is useful as a practical label, it is dangerous when mistaken for an eternal essence.

The TST twist is the idea that there is no value in to force one public answer for the unknownable. It does not ask everyone to choose the same answer about the eternal soul, Brahman, God, Heaven, or the final nature of consciousness. Those are deep worldview claims. But publicly, we still need common ground. We all share this material world during this life. TST asks us to build our public truths, public beliefs, and public systems on this material world during this life.

 


That Spirituality Story, 

was first published on TST 2 years ago.

The end.

Scroll to Top