There is a picture of Epicurus or Marcus Aurelius with some pithy quote posted daily on many social media channels. The idea that "stoicism" is obscure is tenuous at best.
Pretty weak evidence for something not being obscure. I'm willing to bet that a survey would support my position that it's obscure. As for my weak evidence: personally I don't know anyone that is familiar with stoic ethics, and even in my university's philosophy department, it's basically only the one professor who specializes in Hellenic philosophy that obviously is familiar with it. Furthermore I have seen several CBT practicioners and none of them have heard of it.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the author[0] means there either. I looked through the latest Census and I couldn't find any sufficient data on "hippies", as there was not a question for that[1]. If there is no data on it, how can one make the dubious claim that one is "full of"[2] them? I really wish this article was more well researched[3].
[0] by author I am referring to the author of the article which this thread is talking about
So an article that gives reason and background as to "why one should retrain the way they think" is instantly disqualified because of a singular sentence that is perhaps a bit hyperbolic? Ah, the literal mind!
You are not wrong in general. But we are all fairly busy around here, I imagine (at least I am). I'd like an article to win me over in the first paragraph.
First impression matters. Call it literal if you will, but to me it's rather a bad first impression.
I agree that the claim that All Jews are necessarily Pro-Israel is false. But I don't think that was what the author meant. His claim seemed more like "Israel is a Jewish state, and does misdeeds under that banner", which I don't think anyone would disagree with.
