I think both must be true in different ways. How 'bout this: Phyllo is right in that we all must be challenged in order to grow (no pain, no gain), but you’re right Mags in that we all must have a support system in order to grow. Going out and meeting the challenges of un-like minded people is the gathering of material for growth. Returning to your peers and support group is how to best utilize that material for growth. Without material, there isn’t much to grow on, even if you have the best support group in the world. But without a support group, it’s difficult to know how to utilize the material for your own growth, even if you have an iron resolve to do so. The support group provides guidance, a different (perhaps objective) perspective, and also rejuvinates your confidence in case the challenges take too much of a toll on you.
Are you sure of that, Pilgrim? I’ll often nibble from people’s philosophies, but if I don’t return for more, it’s only because I’m at a huge buffet and all I can do to fill my plate is nibble on a bit of this and a bit of that.
And if you were to split that up into, let’s say, 10 words (or more)… what would it be?
I think it’s pretty rare that personal stuff doesn’t impinge on human experience in general. What experience does a person go through that another can’t relate to to some degree?
I suppose certain groups of people can boast that they’ve had experiences in life which I will never have: what it’s like to be a blind man, what it’s like to be a woman giving birth… but even then, the sharing of these experiences are common at least within that group.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about philosophy, the main subject of this forum, it’s that any topic can be made into philosophy, especially personal experiences.
I think the way Einstein meant that phrase wasn’t in the mutually exclusive sense–either knowledge or imagination–but in the sense of what is needed for what. Imagination is needed for knowledge, it’s needed for understanding. It’s like I was explaining to Magnus Anderson the other day: just in order to understand the word “apple”, one must bring to their imagination the idea of an apple–otherwise there’s no comprehension at all–and just the same, I think in order to understand the knowledge we possess, we must conceptualize that knowledge in our imagination. So imagination is more important than knowledge in the sense that it is needed for knowledge, and if we’re lucky, can bring us beyond knowledge.
On truth seekers: I think I would have called myself a truth seeker in my youth, but one of the most profound truths I ever stumbled across is that half the time, you’ve gotta invent your own truth. In science, in engineering, in justice and law, it’s best to be a truth seeker–let your beliefs be guided by evidence–but there are so many areas of life in which being a truth inventor is best–and in many of them, the only thing to be. I’m thinking of areas in life in which nothing is really a fact of the matter. Take mental health for example. Are you a glass is half full person or a glass is half empty person? Is there a fact of the matter? The whole crux of this expression is that there isn’t, and that what that leaves us with is a choice, a couple of perspective to select. Now, the choice is not based on facts or evidence. We suddenly realize in this moment that the truth depends on what we want it to be, yet we can still be guided by a principle: mental health. What would be more healthy? To see the glass as half empty or half full? Or take as another example: criticism. Someone may harshly criticize you and make you feel small. But what we often do, and this is normal and healthy, is try at once to accept the criticism (if you see little kernels of truth in it) and to re-think it in a more positive way, a way that doesn’t make you feel small or belittled. Judging a person or yourself on their/your character flaws is far removed from the realm of facts and evidence, and very much in the realm of inventing truth–the skill here being to simply recognize what truth counts as healthy.