Phil • Cr. Think • Science • Hist • …
TST PRACTICE

The Philosophy Website

Wisdom Builder

Three Tidbit Stories

Topic:
Viruses
Timeless ideas at the intersections of science, philosophy, critical thinking, and history.

Viruses.

3 random tidbit stories in about 3 minutes.

Idea 1.

A Viruses FAQ.

No, fiction is not part of journalism. Journalism reports what happened, what is happening, or what can be responsibly supported by evidence. Fiction does something different. It invents people, places, events, dialogue, and situations. Even when fiction tells deep truths about fear, injustice, or human nature, it is not reporting. A novel is not a newspaper. A parable is not an investigation. A movie can feel true without being factually true.

But, Philosophy of Fiction is a subcategory of Philosophy of Journalism because journalism cannot be fully understood unless we understand its boundaries. To know what counts as public truth, we also need to know what does not count as public truth. Fiction, myth, and propaganda are lies in a way, lies that help define the edge of journalism. Journalism says, “This happened.” Fiction says, “Imagine this.” That difference matters.

Fiction is powerful because it can reveal truth without claiming fact. A made-up story can expose patterns in real life. It can help us understand ambition, grief, loyalty, cruelty, or hope. In that sense, fiction can carry wisdom, but it does not carry the same kind of truth as journalism. Fiction earns its value through meaning, insight, emotional accuracy, and imaginative realism. Journalism earns its value through evidence, verification, sourcing, and correction.

So fiction itself is not journalism, but studying fiction helps protect journalism. It keeps us from confusing a good story with a true report. It reminds us that narratives can illuminate reality or distort it. A healthy truth system needs that boundary. Journalism disciplines public fact. Fiction explores possible meaning. Both use stories, but only one is responsible for reporting what actually happened.

I wrote that Viruses FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 5 months ago.

 

Idea 2.

A Viruses FAQ.

Yes. Secular spirituality sits in a long tradition. Here are just a few I write about:

  • Laozi, who lived in ancient China, found reverence with alignment in the way of nature.
  • In ancient India, the Buddha found it in disciplined experience focused on this realm.
  • In ancient Greco-Roman times, the Stoics refined strict alignment with reality.
  • In post-Medieval times, Spinoza found spirituality in nature itself.
  • In modern times, James and Dewey found it in lived human transformation and being.
  • Even Einstein and Carl Sagan found it in cosmic awe grounded in scientific observations.

In ancient thought, secular spirituality shows up again and again. Laozi pointed toward the Dao, the deep way of nature that words can never fully capture. The Buddha focused on suffering, impermanence, and disciplined inner practice. The Stoics taught people to live according to nature, accept what they cannot control, and shape what they can. These are not lab sciences, but they are deeply rooted in the observation of life, mind, and nature.

In modern thought, the same thread continues. Spinoza found sacredness in nature itself rather than in a supernatural ruler outside it. William James studied spiritual experience as lived human experience. John Dewey separated religious institutions from the deeper “religious” quality of devotion, purpose, and moral seriousness. Einstein and Sagan talked openly about how science-first spirituality deepens awe.

So yes, secular spirituality is supported across history. Many serious thinkers chose not to ignore human experience, nature, mystery, or our limits. Science-first spirituality does not mock belief or drain life of wonder. It simply lets reality push back. It honors awe without pretending to know what it does not know.

I wrote that Viruses FAQ, 

and posted it to TST 4 months ago.

 

Idea 3.

A Viruses Story.

New Look

30 Philosophers, Chapter 27: Categorized within Consequentialism, fear-based ethics focuses on “good results” and are measured with a big stick–acts are not primarily measured by merit. Karma and Divine Command Theory are two examples of this faulty ethical system. With Karma, you fear a negative rebirth, and with Divine Command Theory, you fear God’s wrath. With both you lose sight of right and wrong. The solution to the faulty ethical system is simple, teach the intrinsic value of moral acts, not fear.

I wrote that Viruses Story, 

and posted it to TST 2 years ago.

 

The end. Refresh for another set.

Scroll to Top