Keely Adler

The problem: When cultures come into contact, they experience conflicts over meanings. Other peoples do things differently; their beliefs seem obviously wrong to us. But they think our beliefs and practices are wrong. How do we know ours are right? The solution: The systematic mode tries to solve this problem by creating unarguable foundations, to

Hope, writes the moral philosopher Kieran Setiya,18 “keeps the flicker of potential agency alive.”

Our systems, institutions, leaders and narratives about who and what we are — our lack of compassion and limited definitions of what a valued member of society is — are failing us. They have been failing us for quite some time

Myths, fairy tales, and archetypal stories give us a sense of cohesion because we recognize the patterns, even unconsciously, as bone-deeply familiar. Stories serve to remind us that whatever difficulties we might be experiencing have been encountered many times before. We are not alone; we are connected to an ancestral storehouse of experience,

our engagement with possibility is, at all times, constrained (e.g., by what is, by previous imaginations of what could be, by their enactment). This doesn’t mean that we cannot envision radical possibilities but that constraints – themselves never fully fixed in time and space – are enablers of our relationship with what is possible, both in its

Chat” evokes what search engines and databases cannot: a sense of personal involvement. It implicates one’s selfhood, which helps cultivate certain behaviors