Why It S Ok To Be Of Two Minds

Most of us experience the world through competing perspectives. A job or a religion seems important and fulfilling when looked at in one way, but from a different angle they seem tedious or ridiculous. A friend is obtuse from one point of view, wise from another. Continuing to hold both views at once can be unsettling, highlighting conflicts between our own judgments and values and undermining our ability to live purposefully and effectively. Yet, as Jennifer Church argues in this book, inner conflict can be a good thing, and not just as a temporary road bump on the road to resolution. This book describes several desirable types of “double consciousness” – or being of two minds – and explains why and how they should be maintained. Church looks critically at some common ideas about identity, including a popular belief about narratives that suggests our lives should “make sense” as a story. She also examines how empathy can helpfully cause us to be of two minds, and how various forms of irony and laughter enable us to benefit from holding onto opposing views. Finally, Church shows the merit of acknowledging reality while sometimes being guided by fantasy. Why It’s OK to Be of Two Minds is for anyone who’s held two opposing views simultaneously, which is to say it’s for everyone. Key Features • Argues against a long-standing philosophical idea: that it is important to resolve inner conflicts that result from competing systems of beliefs. • Examines the role of empathy and friendship in maintaining a valuable form of double consciousness. • Considers how irony and laughter allow us to dedicate ourselves to our particular projects while acknowledging their ultimate insignificance. • Shows how fantasies that conflict with our beliefs can make a positive contribution to the way we live our lives.

Political protests, debates on college campuses, and social media tirades make it seem like everyone is speaking their minds today. Surveys, however, reveal that many people increasingly feel like they’re walking on eggshells when communicating in public. Speaking your mind can risk relationships and professional opportunities. It can alienate friends and anger colleagues. Isn’t it smarter to just put your head down and keep quiet about controversial topics? In this book, Hrishikesh Joshi offers a novel defense of speaking your mind. He explains that because we are social creatures, we never truly think alone. What we know depends on what our community knows. And by bringing our unique perspectives to bear upon public discourse, we enhance our collective ability to reach the truth on a variety of important matters. Speaking your mind is also important for your own sake. It is essential for developing your own thinking. And it’s a core aspect of being intellectually courageous and independent. Joshi argues that such independence is a crucial part of a well-lived life. The book draws from Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, and a range of contemporary thinkers to argue that it’s OK to speak your mind. Key Features Shows that we have not just a right but a moral duty to publicly share what we know. Argues that discussing your unique ideas with others is essential for developing as a critical thinker. Explores the value of intellectual honesty and independence in the writings of John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche and connects their thinking to contemporary problems. Argues that avoiding cultural blind spots today is important for the fate of future generations.

Every year, millions of students in the United States and around the world graduate from high school and college. Commencement speakers—often distilling the hopes of parents and four years of messaging from educators—tell graduates that they must do something grand, ambitious, or far-reaching. Change the world. Disrupt the status quo. Every problem in the world is your problem, awaiting your solutions. This book is an antidote to that advice. It provides a clear-eyed assessment of three types of people who tend to believe and promote a commencement speaker’s view of the world: the moralizer, who imposes unnecessary social costs by inappropriately enforcing morality; the busybody, who thinks the stranger and close friend merit equal shares of our benevolent attention; and the pure hearted, who equates acting with good intentions with just outcomes. The book also provides a bold defense of living an ordinary life by putting down roots, creating a good home, and living in solitude. A quiet, peaceful life can be generous and noble. It’s OK to mind your own business.

AS SEEN ON THIS MORNING 'a fascinating and moving account of life working with people who too often society wants to forget' Dr Amanda Brown, author of THE PRISON DOCTOR 'excellent and enlightening' Jonathan Levi and Emma French, authors of INSIDE BROADMOOR 'thought provoking' Gwen Adshead, author of THE DEVIL YOU KNOW Shocking, eye-opening and grimly fascinating, these are the true stories, patients and cases that have characterised a career spent treating mentally disordered offenders. As a forensic psychiatrist, it's Dr Das's job to treat and rehabilitate what the tabloids might call the 'criminally insane', many of whom assault, rob, rape, and even kill. His work takes him to high-security prisons and securely locked hospital wards across the country, as well as inside courtrooms, giving evidence as an expert witness. From the young woman who smothered her two-year-old nephew in a flash of psychosis, to the teenager who set his house on fire with his mother locked inside, Dr Das must delve into the minds of these violent offenders to elicit their symptoms of mental illness, understand their actions and prevent future atrocities. In this honest, revealing and at times humorous memoir, Dr Das shares stories from his fifteen years as a psychiatric doctor working with this dangerous clientele, detailing some of his most extreme, heart-breaking and bizarre cases - and how he's learned to live with his mistakes when the worse happens. Compelling, enlightening and candid, if you enjoyed Unnatural Causes, Dark Side of the Mind or The Prison Doctor, you'll love IN TWO MINDS.

Vegetarians have argued at great length that meat-eating is wrong. Even so, the vast majority of people continue to eat meat, and even most vegetarians eventually give up on their diets. Does this prove these people must be morally corrupt? In Why It’s OK to Eat Meat, Dan C. Shahar argues the answer is no: it’s entirely possible to be an ethical person while continuing to eat meat—and not just the "fancy" offerings from the farmers' market but also the regular meat we find at most supermarkets and restaurants. Shahar’s examination forcefully echoes vegetarians’ concerns about the meat industry’s impacts on animals, workers, the environment, and public health. However, he shows that the most influential ethical arguments for avoiding meat on the basis of these considerations are ultimately unpersuasive. Instead of insisting we all become vegetarians, Shahar argues each of us has broad latitude to choose which of the world’s problems to tackle, in what ways, and to what extents, and hence people can decline to take up this particular form of activism without doing anything wrong. Key Features First book-length defense of meat-eating written for a popular audience Punchy, accessible introduction to the multifaceted debate over the ethics of eating meat Includes pioneering new examinations of humane labeling practices Shows why appeals to universalized patterns of behavior can’t vindicate vegetarians’ claims that there’s a duty to avoid meat Develops a novel theory of ethical activism with potential applications to a wide range of other issues

Why trust science? Why should science have more authority than "other ways of knowing?" Is science merely a social construct? Or even worse: a tool of oppression? This book boldly takes on these and other explosive questions—lodged by ideologues on the left and the right—and offers readers a well researched defense of science and a polemic addressed to its detractors. Why It’s OK to Trust Science critically examines the recent history of critiques of science, including those in academia from scholars like Bruno Latour, Simon Schaffer, and Thomas Kuhn. It then presents case studies drawn from recent advances in the field of dinosaur paleontology, showing how science generates objective knowledge, even during revolutionary episodes. The book next looks at how that same objective knowledge can be gained even when researching extremely complex issues, using climate science to distinguish between genuine skepticism –upon which science depends–from dogmatic denial. The book is for anyone who needs thoughtful, razor sharp responses to the detractors of science—whether they be anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, profit-seeking businessmen, or published relativists in the knowledge-making industries. Key Features: Highly readable and accessible without oversimplifying the complexities of scientific research Exposes the many flaws of the "undertermination thesis"—the argument that indefinitely many hypotheses are compatible with any body of evidence Explores whether moral and other value-laden questions can be answered by science Includes three appendixes online: (1) Summary of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; (2) Rorty on Losing the World; (3) 21 Facts in Support of Human-Caused Climate Change

Do you feel like you’re the only person at your office without an "I Voted!" sticker on Election Day? It turns out that you're far from alone – 100 million eligible U.S. voters never went to the polls in 2016. That’s about 35 million more than voted for the winning presidential candidate. In this book, Christopher Freiman explains why these 100 million need not feel guilty. Why It’s OK to Ignore Politics argues that you’re under no obligation to be politically active. Freiman addresses new objections to political abstention as well as some old chestnuts ("But what if everyone stopped voting?"). He also synthesizes recent empirical work showing how our political motivations distort our choices and reasoning. Because participating in politics is not an effective way to do good, Freiman argues that we actually have a moral duty to disengage from politics and instead take direct action to make the world a better place. Key Features: Makes the case against a duty of political participation for a non-expert audience Presupposes no knowledge of philosophy or political science and is written in a style free of technical jargon Addresses the standard, much-repeated arguments for why one should vote (e.g., one shouldn’t free ride on the efforts of others) Presents the growing literature on politically motivated reasoning in an accessible and entertaining way Covers a significant amount of new ground in the debate over a duty of political participation (e.g., whether participating absolves us of our complicity in state injustice) Challenges the increasingly popular argument from philosophers and economists that swing state voting is effective altruism Discusses the therapeutic benefits of ignoring politics—it’s good for you, your relationships, and society as a whole.

Why It’s OK to Own a Gun explores the right to self-defense, but also looks beyond it to what gun ownership fundamentally means in American life. Guns can provide a source of meaning that doesn’t depend on how much money you have or how important your job is. Guns can offer a sense of shared identity that’s not hung up on intellectual credentials or ideological orthodoxy. For many responsible gun owners, owning a gun is a way of positively reclaiming one’s own agency in the world. It’s true that guns matter to only a minority of Americans, but the same could be said for many important political liberties. Like freedom of religion and freedom of expression, guns should be on the list of basic rights. In fact, they are: as some in America’s founding generation anticipated, gun rights have offered a bulwark for republican freedom. Because there is nothing morally wrong with any of these values, owning a gun is OK. Key Features: Discusses the grounds of the political rights of gun ownership Connects the debate over guns with the sociology of gun ownership Describes genuinely worthwhile features of a way of life that’s unfamiliar to many readers Considers empirical and normative aspects of the gun debate Thinks about individual rights in the context of state power