In recent years, the ability of the human race to dialogue about our viewpoints civilly and logically has been lost. In this article, Lim Jih Ming argues that if we want someone to be open to your perspective, you need to tolerate and seek to understand theirs too. Tolerance is a two-way street.
Nowadays, it’s impossible to go to a coffee shop, walk along the street, or sit on a train without being surrounded by people staring at their phone screens. And no wonder! Our smartphones enable us to engage with people and ideas from all over the world. At the same time, they are highly addictive and research shows they can detract from our social interactions. Is it time we broke up with our smartphones?
— Jessica Bennett
By adapting the 2nd law of thermodynamics to our economic system MUSE seems to warn us about how in a society led by consumerism, mankind seems to have started a race which could end with its annihilation. With all that we have learned about the impact of global warming on our environment it would be wrong to dismiss this out of hand. To avoid such a result, disparate voices have offered a variety of alternate methods. Whereas some promote a society free of capitalist thoughts, such as the degrowth movement, others still think the very DNA of capitalism could be transformed to embrace environmentalism. This branch of thought has led to the rise of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
The way we communicate is ever-changing. Communication, from the moment we start to babble as infants, is an inevitable and natural human phenomenon. Of course, it evolves, changing with our evolution as a species just as naturally as language changes in us – as individuals – over the course of our lives. But although human communication is wedded to change, modern communication is changing in such rapid and unprecedented ways that it is both important and timely that we step back and take note.
Language is of course used to define and label the world around us, and these shared meanings enable us to transmit ideas across minds. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein viewed language as a social practice, arguing that the meaning of language is in its public use. Without shared meanings, he thought, the communication of ideas would be impossible. In Wittgenstein’s philosophy, in order to communicate with a social tribe, we must adhere to the rules of its conventionally accepted ‘language games’.
When I think about the word ‘fellowship’ the first thing that came to my mind was the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. And even though, I love it and J.R.R. Tolkien is a genius writer, I could not help myself thinking that such powerful word could be narrowed in my mind to Frodo Baggins’ and his companions fantasy adventure. That feeling of helplessness encouraged me to rethink about the idea of Fellowship and share it, perhaps in a non-conclusive work but sufficiently persuasive to encourage further rethinking on its readers.