Terrified is a useless thing. Angry can be useful, if you have a reasonable course of action it can kickstart. Doggedness, though, will give the lie to the tragic view of history every time. But only in the long run.
Terrified of what "they" might do to your kids? Start here: don't push for "them" to keep your kids in school. Don't invite "them" to program your kids with TV & apps & social media. Think it's hard to stay balanced as adults? Now do it with a brain half-baked.
That's why it's your job, parents. Your job to teach. Your job to enrich. Your job to draw lines where *you* see fit, not where "they" tell you. Your job to stop letting "them" haunt you. Your job to do the hard thing: to make your Yes, Yes, and your No, No to your kids.
In the end, nothing beats doggedness in pursuit of reasonableness, even when everyone including your kids thinks you're being fringy or frumpy or wild-eyed or grumpy. Stay the course. Love 'em and tell them so by getting through each new garbage storm together.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK, so "schole" and contemplation. Need a whole set of related concepts here, and *every term* marks a contested distinction, most since pagan antiquity.
So rule one is "beware simplifications with salespitches attached." Sure, even mine. :-)
Second, yes, I'm skipping accent marks because they're hard to type on mobile. So sue me!
The conceptual field here, as I see it, has these main terms:
work
play
downtime
leisure
"schole"
action
contemplation
study
discourse
prayer
liberal arts
practical arts
professions
trades
labor
servility
A theory or a movement is not more vital, nor more supernaturally grounded, because it is more atavistic or primal.
This is especially true where there is a self-conscious adoption of such irrationalisms over against existing rational structures.
Yes, sometimes we need to "reject the premise" because we have begun an argument from a false or muddled position.
I'm actually a huge advocate of doing just this, in fact.
BUT appealling to some sort of inchoate force acting across history? Nah.
Ever since the German Romantics were assimilated into the Borg of Hegel, which has spun off a million splinter factions like so many Disney Star Wars sequels, we have had a tendency to propose one Romanticism as the solution for the "dead letter" of another.
Loyalty to *expressed principles that are true* and to *every principle within its scope* are what keep the unavoidable variety and even contrariety of particular judgments from turning into sheer self-asserting chaos.
But the idea that principles are *neutral* is a delusion.
Principles are heuristic. When we reason by analogy (as we necessarily do, for there is no other way for reason to bear fruit) from a well-known to a partially-known, we gain information about the principle they share or about the less well-known.
When we are trying to "get down to cases," that is, to make a decision together despite the inevitable partiality (in both registers) of our understanding, we need well-established principles to keep us from simply indulging in special pleading.