Latest news with #Delphic
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
You can't handle the truth about Victoria's secret school cuts
As Ben Carroll was standing before his bathroom mirror on Wednesday morning knotting the striped tie he'd selected for his appearance before budget estimates, Victoria's education minister faced an important choice. Knowing he would be interrogated about his government's unannounced decision to delay by three years extra money public schools need to deliver the Gonski reforms, Carroll could either fess up or maintain the charade. A part of him felt like channelling Colonel Nathan Jessup, Jack Nicholson's scene-stealing character in A Few Good Men. Colonel Carroll, did you oppose these funding cuts? You're God damn right I did! Such a spontaneous outbreak of political honesty, aside from providing a moment of catharsis for Carroll, would have cleared the air around a bad decision already costing the Allan government more than the money it will save in future years. Alas, there are no Hollywood endings in Spring Street and too few good men. Carroll's other choice was to stick to a cynical script approved by advisers within the premier's private office in which he neither confirms nor denies the funding delay, refuses to acknowledge the financial impact on government schools and offers a vague promise to fully fund the Gonski reforms 'through the life of the agreement' – in other words, sometime in the next 10 years. Having centred his tie to his satisfaction and given his neatly clipped, salt and pepper locks one final look in the mirror, Carroll decided discretion was the better part of valour. He took his seat in estimates, looked back at his questioners and declared with Delphic circularity: 'We are getting on with doing everything that we are bound to do.' Not even Jack Nicholson could do much with that line.
The Age
4 days ago
- Business
- The Age
You can't handle the truth about Victoria's secret school cuts
As Ben Carroll was standing before his bathroom mirror on Wednesday morning knotting the striped tie he'd selected for his appearance before budget estimates, Victoria's education minister faced an important choice. Knowing he would be interrogated about his government's unannounced decision to delay by three years extra money public schools need to deliver the Gonski reforms, Carroll could either fess up or maintain the charade. A part of him felt like channelling Colonel Nathan Jessup, Jack Nicholson's scene-stealing character in A Few Good Men. Colonel Carroll, did you oppose these funding cuts? You're God damn right I did! Such a spontaneous outbreak of political honesty, aside from providing a moment of catharsis for Carroll, would have cleared the air around a bad decision already costing the Allan government more than the money it will save in future years. Alas, there are no Hollywood endings in Spring Street and too few good men. Carroll's other choice was to stick to a cynical script approved by advisers within the premier's private office in which he neither confirms nor denies the funding delay, refuses to acknowledge the financial impact on government schools and offers a vague promise to fully fund the Gonski reforms 'through the life of the agreement' – in other words, sometime in the next 10 years. Having centred his tie to his satisfaction and given his neatly clipped, salt and pepper locks one final look in the mirror, Carroll decided discretion was the better part of valour. He took his seat in estimates, looked back at his questioners and declared with Delphic circularity: 'We are getting on with doing everything that we are bound to do.' Not even Jack Nicholson could do much with that line.
Forbes
29-04-2025
- Sport
- Forbes
Kentucky Derby 2025: Journalism, Sovereignty, And Rodriguez In Works
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY - APRIL 27: Journalism during the morning training in preparation for the 151st Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on April 25, 2025 in Louisville, Kentucky. (Photo by) A rain-soaked Churchill Downs track caused trainer Michael McCarthy to move their Saturday, April 26 five-furlong breeze for top Kentucky Derby favorite Journalism to Sunday, April 27, with Journalism's regular race jockey Umberto Ruspoli, who had flown into Louisville from Santa Anita, in the irons. It was a good gamble — the track dried out and was fast. Journalism posted 1:01.24 in the breeze, galloping out in 1:13.52 at six furlongs and hitting the seven-eighths pole in 1:26.73, according to the Daily Racing Form timer Mike Welsch. Notably, the Churchill timer had Journalism at 1:01.4 for the five furlongs. Trainer McCarthy wasn't looking for a blistering time; this was to be a pre-Derby breeze simply as a barometric reading of how his athlete was feeling as well as delivering Journalism the tonic of getting him out and moving. After the work, the trainer was mobbed by the press at 7:30 in the morning, as any leading Derby trainer is and forever will be during Derby week. With what we can describe as hilariously Delphic understatement, he said: 'Just a nice leg-stretcher. He got to see the whole place,' adding that jockey Umberto Rispoli 'seemed like he was very happy' with his mount. But before we get into other contenders' works, here, a refresher on the field and its morning line. Post Position, Horse, Trainer, Jockey, Morning Line 1. Citizen Bull, Bob Baffert, Martin Garcia, 20-1 2. Neoequos, Saffie Joseph Jr., Flavien Prat, 30-1 3. Final Gambit, Brad Cox, Luan Machado, 30-1 4. Rodriguez, Bob Baffert, Mike Smith, 12-1 5. American Promise, D. Wayne Lukas, Nik Juarez, 30-1 6. Admire Daytona, Yukihiro Kato, Christophe Lemaire, 30-1 7. Luxor Café, Noriyuki Hori, Joao Moreira, 15-1 8. Journalism, Michael McCarthy, Umberto Rispoli, 3-1 9. Burnham Square, Ian Wilkes, Brian Hernandez Jr., 12-1 10. Grande, Todd Pletcher, John Velazquez, 20-1 11. Flying Mohawk, Whit Beckman, Joe Ramos, 30-1 12. East Avenue, Brendan Walsh, Manny Franco, 20-1 13. Publisher, Steve Asmussen, Irad Ortiz Jr., 20-1 14. Tiztastic, Steve Asmussen, Joel Rosario, 20-1 15. Render Judgment, Kenny McPeek, Julien Leparoux, 30-1 16. Coal Battle, Lonnie Briley, Juan Vargas, 30-1 17. Sandman, Mark Casse, Jose Ortiz, 6-1 18. Sovereignty, Bill Mott, Junior Alvarado, 5-1 19. Chunk of Gold, Ethan West, Jareth Loveberry, 30-1 20. Owen Almighty, Brian Lynch, Javier Castellano, 30-1 Also eligible 21. Baeza, John Shirreffs, Flavien Prat, 12-1 Source: Churchill Downs, 4/29/2025 Rodriguez at work in preparation for the 151st Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on April 26, 2025 in Louisville, Kentucky. (Photo by) For his part, the Bob Baffert-trained Rodriguez, pictured above on April 26, was just a shade snappier on Sunday at the five furlong mark, putting in a strong 59.02, according to the Daily Racing Form, and 1.00:00, according to the track, just a shade of negligible difference there, but enough to be the biggest sort difference with the Derby's $5,000,000 purse in play. Returning to Churchill after his infamous two-year-plus-one-year Churchill ban dating from Medina Spirit's 2021 betamethasone disqualification, Baffert was buoyant about the work. 'Right over there, on our shed-row rail, that's where the roses are going to hang,' the six-time Derby winner joked to the assembled press. More seriously, Baffert noted that he'd been pleasantly surprised by the increasing maturity Rodriguez had exhibited in training recently, which, in Baffert-parlance, is the trademark laconic New-Mexico-cowboy sort of praise that handicappers would do well to take seriously on Saturday. Translated into lay language, it means that Rodriguez isn't flighty or much spooked by anything foreign; and, unusually for a three-year-old, he gets down to business on the track with increasing amounts of focus. It means Baffert himself, a man who knows something about saddling Derby winners — namely, six of them — has a growing measure of confidence in Rodriguez' ability to handle this particular field's version of Derby chaos Saturday afternoon. The athlete's ability to shut out the massive Derby chaff and focus on the job at hand is one of the three great pillars, along with athletic talent honed by careful conditioning, that makes a Derby runner. Looks Like A Breeze: Sovereignty in his 5-furlong workout in preparation for the 151st Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on April 27. (Photo by) Veteran trainer Bill Mott's Sovereignty, pictured above, was definitely not to be left out of the final Churchill works. For his five-furlong breeze in company — meaning, with a workhorse stablemate alongside — Mott had Sovereignty kept in hand, and the colt clocked an intentionally slow 1:01.8. Generally, trainers, and especially that rare subset of Triple Crown trainers, are deathly shy of blowouts six days before a big, tough race like the Derby. Hewing to form, Sovereignty's work was about gaining familiarity with Churchill, including the architecture of the track, barns, paddock et al., as well as about maintaining the fitness levels to which all these young Thoroughbreds have been brought. Because Sovereignty is known as a deep closer and the book on him is that he will take to the Derby's mile-and-a-quarter.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What Socrates' ‘know nothing' wisdom can teach a polarized America
A common complaint in America today is that politics and even society as a whole are broken. Critics point out endless lists of what should be fixed: the complexity of the tax code, or immigration reform, or the inefficiency of government. But each dilemma usually comes down to polarized deadlock between two competing visions and everyone's conviction that theirs is the right one. Perhaps this white-knuckled insistence on being right is the root cause of the societal fissure – why everything seems so irreparably wrong. As religion and philosophy scholars, we would argue that our apparent national impasse points to a lack of 'epistemic humility,' or intellectual humility – that is, an inability to acknowledge, empathize with and ultimately compromise with opinions and perspectives different from one's own. In other words, Americans have stopped listening. So why is intellectual humility in such scarce supply? Of course, the quickest answer might be the right one: that humility runs against most people's fear of being mistaken, and the zero-sum view that being right means someone else has to be totally wrong. But we think that the problem is more complex and perhaps more interesting. We believe epistemic humility presents something of a twofold danger that makes being humble frightening – and has, ever since Socrates first put it at the heart of Western philosophy. If your best friend told you that you were the wisest of all human beings, perhaps you would be inclined to smile in agreement and take the dear friend for a beer. But when the ancient Athenian Socrates was delivered this news, he responded with sincere and utter disbelief – even though his friend had confirmed it with the Delphic oracle, the fortune-telling authority of the ancient world. This nascent humility – 'No, get out of here, I'm definitely not the wisest' – helped spark what became arguably the greatest philosophical life of all time. Despite relative old age, Socrates immediately embarked on a journey to find someone wiser than himself and spent many days seeking out the sages of the ancient world, a quest Plato recounts in his 'Apology of Socrates.' The problem? He discovered that the sages thought they knew more than they actually did. Eventually, Socrates concluded that he himself was, in fact, the wisest of all men, because at least he 'knew that he didn't know.' This is not to say that Socrates knew nothing: He demonstrates time and again that he knows a lot and routinely demonstrated good judgment. Rather, he acknowledged there were definite limitations to the knowledge he could claim. This is the birth of 'epistemic humility' in Western philosophy: the acknowledgment that one's blind spots and shortcomings are an invitation for ongoing intellectual investigation and growth. But this mindset can feel dangerous to other people – especially if they feel absolutely certain in their convictions. In ancient Athens, as much as in the U.S. today, being perceived as right translated into money and power. The city-state's culture was dominated by the Sophists, who taught rhetoric to nobles and politicians, and the Poets, ancient playwrights. Greek theater and epic poetry were closely related to religion, and their creators were treated as mouthpieces for aesthetic and moral truth. What's more, theater and poetry were also major moneymakers, which motivated artists to adopt a mentality of 'fail fast, fail better,' with an eye to eventually proving correct and getting paid. By critically interrogating the idols and polarized views of his culture, Socrates threatened the power holders of his city. A constantly questioning figure is a direct threat to individuals who spend their lives defending unquestioned belief – whether it's belief in themselves, their superiors or their gods. Take Euthyphro, for example, one of Socrates' principal interlocutors. Euthyphro is so sure that he knows the difference between right and wrong that he is bringing his own father to trial. Socrates quickly disabuses him of his certainty, famously debating him about the true meaning of piety. Or take Meletus, the man who eventually brought Socrates to trial on accusations of corrupting youth. In Plato's account of the trial, it takes Socrates no time to show this 'good patriot,' as Meletus calls himself, that he does not understand what patriotism truly means. Without any pretensions to knowing the absolute truth, Socrates is able to shed light on the underlying assumptions around him. It's frustrating to read the Platonic dialogues, the works of philosophy that recount Socrates' life and teaching, in part because Socrates rarely claims the final word on any subject. In short, he gives more questions than answers. But what remains constant is his openness to uncertainty that keeps his inquiry on the move, pushing his inquiries further and deeper. The second danger of epistemic humility is now probably in view. It's the danger that Socrates faced when he was brought to trial for corrupting Athens' youth – the danger to the humble skeptics themselves. He is brought up on two very serious charges. The first was an accusation that he taught students to make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger – which is actually what the Sophists did, not Socrates. The second was that he had invented new gods – again, he didn't do that; poets and playwrights did. What was he really guilty of? Perhaps only this: Socrates criticized the arrogant self-assertion of his culture's influencers, and they brought him to trial, which concluded in his death sentence. Socrates taught that being humble about one's own views was a necessary step in searching for truth – perhaps the most essential one. That was and perhaps still is a revolutionary view, because it forces us to challenge preconceived ideas about what we believe, what we worship and where we tap meaning. He placed himself in the middle of Athenians' sharply polarized debates about what truth and goodness were, and he was the one who got hit. 'Humility like darkness,' wrote American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, 'reveals the heavenly lights.' Put another way, humility about the verity, accuracy and wisdom of one's ideas can reveal the fact that others have understandable reasons for thinking as they do — as long as you try to see the world as they are seeing it. In contrast, arrogance tends to extinguish the 'heavenly light' about what we still don't fully understand. Being humble about one's position in the world is not an invitation for a post-truth, anything-goes opinion free-for-all. Truth – the idea of truth – matters. And we can pursue it together, if we are always open to being wrong. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J. W. Traphagan, The University of Texas at Austin and John J. Kaag, UMass Lowell Read more: Why China feels threatened by the moral authority of a 90-year-old Catholic bishop How ideas from ancient Greek philosophy may have driven civilization toward climate change What Day of the Dead tells us about the Aztec philosophy of happiness This article was produced with support from UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the GGSC's initiative on Expanding Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Humility. J. W. Traphagan and John J. Kaag do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointments.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What Socrates' ‘know nothing' wisdom can teach a polarized America
A common complaint in America today is that politics and even society as a whole are broken. Critics point out endless lists of what should be fixed: the complexity of the tax code, or immigration reform, or the inefficiency of government. But each dilemma usually comes down to polarized deadlock between two competing visions and everyone's conviction that theirs is the right one. Perhaps this white-knuckled insistence on being right is the root cause of the societal fissure – why everything seems so irreparably wrong. As religion and philosophy scholars, we would argue that our apparent national impasse points to a lack of 'epistemic humility,' or intellectual humility – that is, an inability to acknowledge, empathize with and ultimately compromise with opinions and perspectives different from one's own. In other words, Americans have stopped listening. So why is intellectual humility in such scarce supply? Of course, the quickest answer might be the right one: that humility runs against most people's fear of being mistaken, and the zero-sum view that being right means someone else has to be totally wrong. But we think that the problem is more complex and perhaps more interesting. We believe epistemic humility presents something of a twofold danger that makes being humble frightening – and has, ever since Socrates first put it at the heart of Western philosophy. If your best friend told you that you were the wisest of all human beings, perhaps you would be inclined to smile in agreement and take the dear friend for a beer. But when the ancient Athenian Socrates was delivered this news, he responded with sincere and utter disbelief – even though his friend had confirmed it with the Delphic oracle, the fortune-telling authority of the ancient world. This nascent humility – 'No, get out of here, I'm definitely not the wisest' – helped spark what became arguably the greatest philosophical life of all time. Despite relative old age, Socrates immediately embarked on a journey to find someone wiser than himself and spent many days seeking out the sages of the ancient world, a quest Plato recounts in his 'Apology of Socrates.' The problem? He discovered that the sages thought they knew more than they actually did. Eventually, Socrates concluded that he himself was, in fact, the wisest of all men, because at least he 'knew that he didn't know.' This is not to say that Socrates knew nothing: He demonstrates time and again that he knows a lot and routinely demonstrated good judgment. Rather, he acknowledged there were definite limitations to the knowledge he could claim. This is the birth of 'epistemic humility' in Western philosophy: the acknowledgment that one's blind spots and shortcomings are an invitation for ongoing intellectual investigation and growth. But this mindset can feel dangerous to other people – especially if they feel absolutely certain in their convictions. In ancient Athens, as much as in the U.S. today, being perceived as right translated into money and power. The city-state's culture was dominated by the Sophists, who taught rhetoric to nobles and politicians, and the Poets, ancient playwrights. Greek theater and epic poetry were closely related to religion, and their creators were treated as mouthpieces for aesthetic and moral truth. What's more, theater and poetry were also major moneymakers, which motivated artists to adopt a mentality of 'fail fast, fail better,' with an eye to eventually proving correct and getting paid. By critically interrogating the idols and polarized views of his culture, Socrates threatened the power holders of his city. A constantly questioning figure is a direct threat to individuals who spend their lives defending unquestioned belief – whether it's belief in themselves, their superiors or their gods. Take Euthyphro, for example, one of Socrates' principal interlocutors. Euthyphro is so sure that he knows the difference between right and wrong that he is bringing his own father to trial. Socrates quickly disabuses him of his certainty, famously debating him about the true meaning of piety. Or take Meletus, the man who eventually brought Socrates to trial on accusations of corrupting youth. In Plato's account of the trial, it takes Socrates no time to show this 'good patriot,' as Meletus calls himself, that he does not understand what patriotism truly means. Without any pretensions to knowing the absolute truth, Socrates is able to shed light on the underlying assumptions around him. It's frustrating to read the Platonic dialogues, the works of philosophy that recount Socrates' life and teaching, in part because Socrates rarely claims the final word on any subject. In short, he gives more questions than answers. But what remains constant is his openness to uncertainty that keeps his inquiry on the move, pushing his inquiries further and deeper. The second danger of epistemic humility is now probably in view. It's the danger that Socrates faced when he was brought to trial for corrupting Athens' youth – the danger to the humble skeptics themselves. He is brought up on two very serious charges. The first was an accusation that he taught students to make the weaker argument appear to be the stronger – which is actually what the Sophists did, not Socrates. The second was that he had invented new gods – again, he didn't do that; poets and playwrights did. What was he really guilty of? Perhaps only this: Socrates criticized the arrogant self-assertion of his culture's influencers, and they brought him to trial, which concluded in his death sentence. Socrates taught that being humble about one's own views was a necessary step in searching for truth – perhaps the most essential one. That was and perhaps still is a revolutionary view, because it forces us to challenge preconceived ideas about what we believe, what we worship and where we tap meaning. He placed himself in the middle of Athenians' sharply polarized debates about what truth and goodness were, and he was the one who got hit. 'Humility like darkness,' wrote American philosopher Henry David Thoreau, 'reveals the heavenly lights.' Put another way, humility about the verity, accuracy and wisdom of one's ideas can reveal the fact that others have understandable reasons for thinking as they do — as long as you try to see the world as they are seeing it. In contrast, arrogance tends to extinguish the 'heavenly light' about what we still don't fully understand. Being humble about one's position in the world is not an invitation for a post-truth, anything-goes opinion free-for-all. Truth – the idea of truth – matters. And we can pursue it together, if we are always open to being wrong. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J. W. Traphagan, The University of Texas at Austin and John J. Kaag, UMass Lowell Read more: Why China feels threatened by the moral authority of a 90-year-old Catholic bishop How ideas from ancient Greek philosophy may have driven civilization toward climate change What Day of the Dead tells us about the Aztec philosophy of happiness This article was produced with support from UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the GGSC's initiative on Expanding Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Humility. J. W. Traphagan and John J. Kaag do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointments.
