The Wisdom Letter #292
5 quotes from Mary Oliver, Isaac Asimov, and more.
✹ For today’s edition of Wisdom Letter, we have carefully curated five bite-sized quotes from brilliant thinkers such as Mary Oliver and Isaac Asimov, each paired with a philosophical question designed to provoke deep reflection.
Quote № 01:
“To live in this world you must be able to do three things: to love what is mortal; to hold it against your bones knowing your own life depends on it; and, when the time comes to let it go, to let it go.”
— Mary Oliver (1935–2019), “In Blackwater Woods”
~ Follow-up Question:
How does the paradox of deeply loving that which is destined to perish challenge our understanding of attachment, and can such love be considered an act of courage or futility in the face of impermanence?
Quote № 02:
“It is only afterward that a new idea seems reasonable. To begin with, it usually seems unreasonable.”
— Isaac Asimov (1920–1992), “How Do People Get New Ideas?”
~ Follow-up Question:
How should individuals navigate their own instinctive skepticism toward unfamiliar concepts, and what strategies can foster openness without sacrificing critical discernment?
Quote № 03:
“If a captive mind is unaware of being in prison, it is living in error. If it has recognized the fact, even for the tenth of a second, and then quickly forgotten it in order to avoid suffering, it is living in falsehood. Men of the most brilliant intelligence can be born, live and die in error and falsehood. In them, intelligence is neither a good, nor even an asset. The difference between more or less intelligent men is like the difference between criminals condemned to life imprisonment in smaller or larger cells. The intelligent man who is proud of his intelligence is like a condemned man who is proud of his large cell.”
— Simone Weil (1909–1943), “Human Personality”
~ Follow-up Question:
If awareness of one's mental captivity leads to suffering, but ignorance sustains a painless existence, is it more virtuous—or more human—to choose painful awareness over comfortable illusion?
Quote № 04:
“If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.”
— Ray Bradbury (1920–2012), “Fahrenheit 451”
~ Follow-up Question:
How have regimes throughout history exploited the desire for simplicity in political thought, and what lessons can be drawn about the fragility of freedom in the face of such strategies?
Quote № 05:
“Labels are for the things men make, not for men. The most primitive man is too complex to be labeled.”
— Rex Stout (1886–1975), “The Father Hunt”
~ Follow-up Question:
Is the act of labeling people inherently reductive or harmful, and how might it influence our moral obligations toward the individuality and dignity of others?
✽ Thank you for reading today’s Wisdom Letter.
✺ Help Sustain Philosophors
If you’ve enjoyed this issue of Philosophors, consider supporting this one-person labor of love. My goal is to make wisdom more accessible for everyone—completely free of charge, with no ads or paywalls. Philosophors exists solely thanks to the generosity of readers like you. If you’re in a position to help, even a small donation makes a meaningful difference.
✦ Donate Here → buymeacoffee.com/philosophors
With gratitude,
Maze Heart, the curator of Philosophors
Quote #4 from Bradbury and the follow-up question: Two sides to a question is what current (& past) politics Thrives on. So having None would make us all more happy politically. This is Simplicity / Ockham's Razor. I suppose that is what is meant by the follow-up question 'regimes exploit desire for simplicity' (by narrowing the options to two upon which the populace can be divided for the regime's benefit and perpetuation). If it's not that, then it seems to be just distracting the populace with the next nut to drop from the tree... Regimes think of most of us as squirrels... and maybe most of us are (short memory & easily distracted). Cheers to better days ahead!
Q5: One of the functions of labels is to allow us to categorize and understand our world, and those around us. Sure, it can be reductive. But is there a way to recognize the value of labels, without seeing them as the singular expression of the value of a person? If Stout is right, then maybe we need to consider the category of the label itself. What is the purpose of the label, and how do we actually interact with that designation? Perhaps this is why religions have so much power; their labels are not “made by men,” but by God.