Contact information
MidTide Media 123 Pleasant St Suite 300. Marblehead, MA 01945.
The Cycles of Government and Civic Virtue
Plato wrote about it in Republic; Machiavelli wrote about it in The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
What they saw through the history of governments, and what they predicted in the future, was a cycle. Perhaps an endless one. Fukuyama said history ended. He may be wrong.
How Long-Dead Philosophers Influence Us Today
Today we’re joined by Emmet and Karl of OnlineGreatBooks.com to discuss why a bunch of dead thinkers are still hyper-relevant today. We talk about their impact on society and politics, as well as make a case for why they should still be read if we want to understand the world around us, and ourselves. The three philosophers that go under the microscope: Plato, Machiavelli, and Marx.
Nazis, Communists, and Free Speech
For all their differences, national socialism and communism have one essential similarity: they both justify mass murder by promising utopia. Their versions of utopia differ, but they are believed to be attainable, not theoretical. First, though, society must pass through a period of chaos, anarchy and mass violence. This transition period – the struggle – is endured since what comes after is expected to be a revolutionary better world. But the need to endure a time of extreme violence is not a small part of either philosophy – it is a core aspect of both. A better world can be had. But first there must be killing.
Do Democracies Die Without External Enemies?
Do democracies die without external enemies?
The United States has come a long way from its “consensus” period in the cold war. Many people worry that the Republic is falling apart. There are indeed similarities between the United States and the late Roman Republic, and even the late Athenian Democracy, which tore themselves apart internally. There is a growing sense that democracy, even in Europe, is starting to go off the rails.
Is this due, ironically, to peace in Europe?
Toolbox Talk: The Modern Stoic
Politics gets emotional. However the emotional part of our brain was designed not for rational thought, but for knee-jerk survival mechanisms. How can we train our brain to think more clearly about politics in our daily lives?
In this episode, Erik and Xander talk Stoicism, a philosophy and thought strategy that has been used for thousands of years by everyone from salves to emperors to get a grip on the turbulent world around them. You’ll learn why Stoicism is so powerful, and you can apply it in your life and conversations today.
Wordplay: Morals and Ethics
I have noticed something only recently that I have observed for some time in political news and advocacy–I figured out that there is some interesting wordplay about when we talk about the words ethics and morals.
Political Leaders and the Search for Purpose
We have lost a taste for the boring, pragmatic administrators of the past, that is for sure. We lack meaning, and we are hoping desperately that someone we elect will give it to us. Will that leader propel us to greatness, or to folly?
We’re Creating a One-Narrative Country, and It’s Incredibly Dangerous
We’ve got a problem, America. A big one. Those in intellectual power and in control of popular traditional and online media are actively suppressing the capacity for anything but their own narrative from being disseminated. This is the road to tyranny.
Skepticism and Detachment, Part II
Thinking Fast and Slow, a book about decision making, describes two “systems”(1) that process information and therefore reach conclusions in different ways. In this post, Xander uses the principles from Thinking to help us practice skepticism and detachment in political dialogue.
The Ubiquitous Adoption of Paulo Freire: Critical Pedagogy and the Strength of Nonpartisan Ideas
Today’s article is a guest submission by Micah J Fleck. While I have not read Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I found Micah’s work to be compelling and well-researched. Most importantly, it illustrates for us how important it is to not write off someone’s work or ideas based on us disagreeing with other ideas that they might have, as we will lose out on potentially valuable knowledge.