ReConsider, by Xander and Erik, is a twice per month podcast in which we take on, in-depth, one pressing political issue facing western Democracies with a fresh, researched, and challenging perspective. We help listeners see the full context behind the issue and make up their own minds.
Today we're joined by Emmet and Karl of OnlineGreatBooks.com to discuss why a bunch of dead thinkers are still hyper-relevant today. We talk about their impact on society and politics, as well as make a case for why they should still be read if we want to understand the world around us, and ourselves. The three philosophers that go under the microscope: Plato, Machiavelli, and Marx.
Politics gets emotional. However the emotional part of our brain was designed not for rational thought, but for knee-jerk survival mechanisms. How can we train our brain to think more clearly about politics in our daily lives?
In this episode, Erik and Xander talk Stoicism, a philosophy and thought strategy that has been used for thousands of years by everyone from salves to emperors to get a grip on the turbulent world around them. You'll learn why Stoicism is so powerful, and you can apply it in your life and conversations today.
What if you decided to immerse yourself in the opposite political narrative to what you know?
That's just what Stephanie did. She lives surrounded by liberal news media and friends, and she decided to spend a few months reading and listening only to Fox News, to understand what's missing from her own narrative.
The results are awesome.
Everything's falling apart! The breakdown of multilateral institutions! Anti-establishment candidates are popping up everywhere! Russia is escalating! China! Syria! Turkey! Terrorism!
What's it all look like in the long-term?
Free speech protests have popped up in campuses across the United States over the past few years, and everyone is getting their word about it in, even President Obama. You may or may not yet feel strongly about this. No matter where you stand, now's the time to get yourself some context. What is "harm," and what kinds of speech should still be protected even if they are harmful? Time to ReConsider.