In the classical view, a law should be changed, not whenever we can think of an improvement, but only when the improvement is great enough to offset the harm of change in itself.
A graduate student I once taught found this view baffling. What could be bad about change? Life changes. That’s how it is. That’s good.
An advertisement for a private school in our neighborhood association newsletter reads as follows (remember, this is Austin):
No grades.
No homework.
No teachers.
Apply now.
Rolling admissions.
I notice that it doesn’t include “No tuition.”
Neuroscience sometimes explains the how of a fact we shouldn't have needed neuroscientists to tell us. Often, though, the significance of the how is misunderstood.
This will sound nuts -- then again, maybe not? I thought you could shine some light here if you have a moment or two.
I don’t like to write about things the hierarchy does badly, for fear of adding to the scandal by drawing attention to them. It hardly seems possible any longer for Fiducia Supplicans to receive more attention than it already has, so in a small way, let me break my rule. Once. I hope.
C.S. Lewis didn’t write this as a New Year’s reflection, but it works.
The terrible thing, the almost impossible thing, is to hand over your whole self -- all
My students have just finished your book How and How Not to be Happy. They all really liked it. Several, some of them atheists, emailed me privately that the book helped them rethink their lives and values in a positive way. One told his mom to listen to it in the audio version.