What would be the recommended procedures for ordinary citizens to make "wise" choices from political candidates?

Here are some recommended procedures for making wise decisions about your time:

Prioritize and Plan:

• Identify your goals: What do you want to achieve in the long run? Short term? Write them down and revisit them regularly.
• Make a schedule: Block out time for important tasks, including work, errands, leisure, and self-care.
• Prioritize ruthlessly: Not all tasks are created equal. Identify the most important ones and dedicate time to those first.

Be Realistic and Mindful:

• Be honest about your time: How much time do you realistically have for each activity? Don't overload your schedule.
• Acknowledge your energy levels: Schedule demanding tasks for when you're most focused, and leave less demanding tasks for times when your energy dips.
• Minimize distractions: Silence notifications, find a quiet space to work, and avoid multitasking.

Evaluate and Adapt:

• Track your time: See where your time actually goes. Are you spending it on things that align with your goals?
• Be flexible: Unexpected events happen. Be willing to adjust your schedule as needed.
• Learn from experience: Reflect on what worked well and what didn't with your time management.

There are also tools and techniques that can help you be more mindful of your time, like timeboxing (allocating specific time slots for tasks) and the Pomodoro Technique (working in focused 25-minute intervals with short breaks).

Remember, wise time management is about balance and intentionality. By following these steps, you can take control of your time and use it to achieve your goals and live a fulfilling life.

Wise decisions are a hallmark of thoughtful consideration and often go beyond simply being "good" decisions. Here are some key characteristics of wise choices:

• Long-term perspective: Wise decisions consider not just the immediate consequences but also the potential long-term impacts. They factor in how the choice might play out over time and how it aligns with bigger goals.
• Considering multiple viewpoints: Wise decisions aren't made in a vacuum. They involve seeking out different perspectives and understanding how the decision might affect others. This shows empathy and a well-rounded understanding of the situation.
• Grounded in knowledge and experience: Wisdom draws on a foundation of knowledge and past experiences. Wise decisions are made with a clear understanding of the situation and a realistic assessment of potential outcomes, informed by what has worked or not worked before.
• Emotionally intelligent: Wise decisions acknowledge emotions but avoid being ruled by them. They involve a healthy balance of reason and emotional awareness, leading to choices that consider the heart as well as the head.
• Openness to change: The world is unpredictable, and wise decisions recognize that. They allow for flexibility and the possibility that new information or circumstances might require adjustments.
• Accountable and ethical: Wise decisions take responsibility for the consequences and strive to be fair and ethical. They consider the impact on oneself and others, prioritizing a positive contribution.

By incorporating these characteristics, you can increase the likelihood of making choices that are not just strategically sound but also reflect a deeper understanding of yourself and the world around you.

Absolutely! Living well is a personal journey, but there are some general principles that can contribute to a fulfilling life:

Focus on Wellbeing:

• Physical Health: Eat nutritious foods, get regular exercise, and prioritize sleep for a strong foundation.
• Mental Wellbeing: Manage stress, practice mindfulness, and cultivate positive emotions through activities you enjoy.
• Social Connection: Nurture relationships with loved ones and build a strong support system.

Embrace Purpose and Growth:

• Set Goals and Pursue Passions: Having something to strive for and activities you find meaningful brings direction and joy.
• Lifelong Learning: Keep your mind sharp and engaged by exploring new interests and continuously learning.
• Challenge Yourself: Step outside your comfort zone and embrace opportunities for growth.

Cultivate Gratitude and Mindfulness:

• Appreciate the Good: Savor the positive moments and express gratitude for what you have.
• Live in the Present: Practice mindfulness to be fully engaged in the here and now, reducing stress and increasing appreciation for life's experiences.
• Give Back to Others: Helping others fosters connection and a sense of purpose.

Remember:

• Balance is Key: Don't neglect any aspect of your well-being. Strive for a healthy balance between work, rest, relationships, and personal pursuits.
• It's a Journey, Not a Destination: There will be ups and downs. Focus on progress, not perfection, and celebrate your achievements along the way.
• Be Kind to Yourself: Forgive yourself for mistakes and practice self-compassion.

By incorporating these practices, you can cultivate a sense of well-being, purpose, and fulfillment, allowing you to live a truly enriching life.

Common sense philosophy and wisdom are intertwined. Here's how common sense contributes to wisdom:

• Practical Judgment: Common sense is the foundation for practical judgment in everyday situations. It's the "gut feeling" or intuition honed by experience that helps you navigate daily life effectively. Wisdom builds on this by applying this judgment to make well-considered choices.

• Understanding Human Nature: Common sense gives you a basic understanding of how people behave and what motivates them. Wisdom takes this further by recognizing the complexities of human nature and using this understanding to build stronger relationships and make ethical decisions.

• Learning from Experience: Common sense is what you learn from everyday experiences - what works, what doesn't, and basic cause-and-effect. Wisdom uses this accumulated knowledge to make informed decisions and avoid repeating past mistakes.

However, there are some key differences between common sense and wisdom:

• Depth and Scope: Common sense deals with everyday situations, while wisdom applies to more complex, long-term issues. It delves deeper, considering not just "what works" but also "why" and the potential long-term consequences.

• Openness to New Information: Common sense can sometimes be rigid and limited by cultural norms or personal biases. Wisdom is open to new information, different perspectives, and adapting its approach based on the situation.

• Ethical Considerations: Common sense might prioritize immediate results. Wisdom considers the ethical implications of choices, aiming for solutions that benefit everyone involved and align with broader values.

In essence, common sense is the building block, while wisdom is the complex structure built upon it. It uses common sense as a foundation but adds layers of experience, reflection, and ethical reasoning to make choices that are not just practical but also thoughtful and insightful.

Common sense philosophy doesn't offer a formal definition of human nature, but it provides a framework for understanding some core aspects of how humans tend to be, based on everyday experiences. Here are some key ideas:

Social Creatures: Common sense recognizes that humans are inherently social beings. We crave connection, belonging, and interaction with others. This is evident in our desire for families, friendships, and communities.

Self-Preservation: Basic survival instincts are a core part of human nature. We have a natural drive to take care of ourselves, seek food and shelter, and avoid danger.

Self-Interest: Common sense acknowledges a natural tendency towards self-interest. We often prioritize our own needs and desires to some extent.

Reason and Emotion: Humans are a complex mix of reason and emotion. Common sense recognizes that we use logic and reason for decision-making, but emotions also play a significant role in our motivations and behaviors.

Morality and Fairness: There's a general sense of fairness and right vs. wrong ingrained in most people. We tend to have a basic moral compass that guides our interactions with others.

Limited Knowledge and Biases: Common sense acknowledges that human knowledge is limited, and we all have biases that can influence our perceptions and judgments.

It's important to remember that common sense philosophy doesn't claim these are universal truths. Cultures and individuals can vary significantly. However, it offers a starting point for understanding the common threads in human experience.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• Focus on Practicality: Common sense is more concerned with navigating everyday situations effectively than providing a grand theory of human nature.
• Diversity Within Humanity: While recognizing these commonalities, common sense philosophy also acknowledges the vast diversity of human experience and behavior.
• Change and Evolution: Human nature is not static. Common sense allows for the possibility that our understanding of ourselves can evolve over time.

Overall, common sense philosophy offers a practical lens for understanding some core aspects of human nature, helping us navigate everyday interactions and build a foundation for a more fulfilling life.

Common sense philosophy, with its focus on practicality and navigating everyday situations, has a mixed view on the value of martyrdom. Here's why:

Potential Benefits:

• Standing Up for Principles: In extreme situations, martyrdom can represent a strong commitment to principles or beliefs. It can inspire others to stand up for what they believe in, especially in cases of injustice or oppression.

• Sacrifice and Selflessness: Martyrdom can be seen as the ultimate act of selflessness, putting a cause or others before one's own life. This can be a powerful motivator and a source of solidarity within a group.

Drawbacks to Consider:

• Loss of Life: Common sense prioritizes self-preservation. Martyrdom involves sacrificing one's life, which goes against this basic human instinct.

• Alternative Solutions: Common sense often seeks solutions that benefit everyone involved. Martyrdom can escalate conflict and may not always achieve the desired outcome. There might be alternative ways to achieve a goal without resorting to self-sacrifice.

• Unintended Consequences: Martyrdom can sometimes have unintended consequences. It can create a martyr complex, making compromise more difficult, or it can be used for manipulation by others.

Overall:

Common sense philosophy wouldn't necessarily glorify martyrdom. It would encourage finding ways to achieve goals without sacrificing oneself unless absolutely necessary.

Here are some additional factors to consider:

• The Cause: The value of martyrdom depends on the cause one is dying for. Common sense would likely see more value in martyrdom for a just cause than for a trivial or harmful one.
• Alternatives Available: If there are viable alternatives to achieve the same goal without risking one's life, common sense would prioritize those.
• The Potential Impact: The potential impact of martyrdom is also important. If it's likely to inspire positive change or make a significant difference, it might be seen as more valuable.

In conclusion, common sense philosophy wouldn't advocate for martyrdom as a first resort. It would value finding solutions that prioritize life and well-being while still achieving goals. However, in extreme circumstances, where self-sacrifice is the only way to achieve a just cause or make a significant positive impact, it might be seen as a last resort.

Common sense philosophy would likely be highly critical of "stochastic suicide" for a social cause. Here's why:

• Sanctity of Life: Common sense prioritizes self-preservation and the value of human life. Stochastic suicide, by definition, involves taking innocent lives in a random way, which goes against this core principle.

• Lack of Control and Unintended Consequences: Common sense recognizes the unpredictable nature of the world. Stochastic suicide is a gamble - it may not achieve the desired social change and could have unintended negative consequences, creating more suffering.

• Ineffectiveness: Common sense approaches problems practically. Stochastic suicide is a drastic and risky tactic. More constructive and targeted approaches are likely to be more effective in achieving social change.

• Alternative Solutions: Common sense philosophy encourages seeking solutions that benefit all involved. There are likely to be other ways to address social issues that don't involve harming people.

Here are some additional criticisms:

• Loss of Agency for the Cause: Common sense values individual agency. Stochastic suicide takes away the choice from those who might be affected by the social cause.

• Emotional Toll: Stochastic suicide would likely cause immense emotional distress to the families and communities of the victims, creating further suffering.

• Moral Hazard: Common sense recognizes the potential for negative consequences of our actions. Stochastic suicide could discourage people from working towards social change through more constructive means.

Overall, common sense philosophy would strongly criticize stochastic suicide as a strategy for social change. It would advocate for finding solutions that value human life, prioritize non-violent approaches, and focus on achieving positive change through reason, communication, and collective action.

The White Rose Movement would be viewed very favorably within common sense philosophy. Here's why:

Alignment with Common Sense Values:

• Standing Up for What's Right: The White Rose opposed the injustices of the Nazi regime and fought for basic human rights. Common sense philosophy values the courage to stand up for what's right, especially in the face of oppression.
• Non-Violent Resistance: The White Rose used non-violent means of protest, such as distributing leaflets. Common sense generally prioritizes avoiding violence and finding peaceful solutions to conflict.
• Protecting the Innocent: The White Rose aimed to protect innocent people from the atrocities of the Nazi regime. Common sense philosophy prioritizes preserving life and well-being.

Effectiveness:

• Sparking Change: While the White Rose's actions directly led to the arrest and execution of its members, their bravery and message did inspire others to resist and helped expose the regime's brutality. Common sense recognizes that even small acts of defiance can have a ripple effect and contribute to positive change.
• Moral Compass: The White Rose serves as a powerful example of following one's moral compass and acting on one's conscience. Common sense philosophy values acting with integrity and doing what you believe is right.

Context Matters:

While common sense generally discourages unnecessary risks, the White Rose operated in an extreme situation under a totalitarian regime. Their actions were a measured response to an extraordinary situation.

Overall:

Common sense philosophy would highly commend the White Rose Movement. Their actions embodied core common sense values of standing up for what's right, protecting the innocent, and using non-violent resistance in the face of injustice. Their courage and sacrifice serve as an inspiration for those who fight for a better future.

Here's a hypothetical scenario of a stochastic suicide within the context of a social cause, based on what I have been trained on:

The Scenario:

A large, fringe group frustrated with environmental degradation decides to take drastic action. They believe the current systems are failing and plan to force change through a terrifying spectacle.

• They anonymously distribute throughout a major city a large number of packages containing a deadly toxin.
• The packages are identical in appearance and give no indication of the contents.
• The hope is that someone will unknowingly open one, causing panic and drawing significant attention to their cause.

Why it wouldn't be viewed favorably by common sense philosophy:

• Loss of Innocent Lives: The intended victim is completely random and chosen by chance. This goes against the common-sense value of protecting human life.
• Unpredictable Outcome: The true impact is impossible to predict. It could cause widespread panic and social unrest, potentially leading to more harm than good for the cause.
• Ineffectiveness: It's unlikely to achieve the desired outcome of positive environmental change. It might instead create fear and distrust, making it harder to address environmental issues.
• Alternative Solutions: Common sense philosophy would advocate for non-violent, constructive solutions. Public awareness campaigns, lobbying for legislation, and promoting sustainable practices are more likely to lead to lasting change.

Additional Considerations:

• Emotional Trauma: The chosen method would cause immense emotional trauma to the victim's loved ones and the wider community.
• Moral Hazard: Such actions could discourage people from working towards environmental change through peaceful means.
• Loss of Agency: The random nature of the act takes away any choice from the potential victim.

In conclusion, common sense philosophy would find stochastic suicide to be a morally reprehensible and strategically ineffective approach to social change. It would advocate for finding solutions that value human life, prioritize non-violent approaches, and focus on achieving positive change through reason, communication, and collective action.

Malala Yousafzai's actions would be viewed very positively within common sense philosophy. Here's why:

Alignment with Common Sense Values:

• Standing Up for What's Right: Malala advocated for girls' education, a fundamental human right. Common sense philosophy values fighting for fairness and justice, especially for the vulnerable.
• Non-Violent Resistance: Malala used her voice and peaceful means like writing and public speaking to advocate for education. Common sense generally prioritizes avoiding violence and finding peaceful solutions to conflict.
• Self-Preservation with Courage: While Malala's activism put her in danger, she didn't passively accept the situation. She spoke out with courage despite the risks involved. Common sense values taking a stand for what you believe in while also prioritizing your safety within reason.

Effectiveness:

• Sparking Change: Malala's bravery and advocacy inspired millions of girls around the world and brought international attention to the issue of girls' education. Common sense recognizes that even a single voice can have a powerful impact and contribute to positive change.
• Role Model: Malala serves as a powerful role model for young people, especially girls, demonstrating the power of education and standing up for your beliefs. Common sense philosophy values the importance of positive role models who inspire others.

Context Matters:

Malala's situation was indeed dangerous, but she wasn't initiating violence. She was responding to a regime that actively suppressed girls' education.

Overall:

Common sense philosophy would highly commend Malala Yousafzai. Her actions embodied core common sense values of standing up for what's right, promoting education and equality, and using non-violent resistance in the face of oppression. Her courage and perseverance serve as an inspiration for those who fight for a just world.

Her case highlights a key difference between common sense and stochastic suicide. Malala's actions were targeted, with a clear message and a goal of positive change. Stochastic suicide, on the other hand, involves random violence and doesn't have a clear path towards achieving a desired outcome.

Based on our conversation, here's a definition of "stochastic suicide" for a social cause:

Stochastic suicide is an act of self-harm or violence intended to bring attention to a social cause, where the victim is chosen randomly. It involves taking innocent lives in a way that is unpredictable and statistically determined, aiming to shock or terrify the public into action.

Here are the key points of this definition:

• Social Cause: The act is driven by a desire to force change on a social or political issue.
• Random Victim Selection: The victim is not chosen based on any specific criteria, but by chance. This is the key element that differentiates it from targeted assassinations.
• Self-Harm or Violence: The act involves someone taking their own life or harming others, often with a deadly element.
• Unpredictable Outcome: The true impact of the act is impossible to predict, and it's unlikely to achieve the desired outcome in a positive way.

Common sense philosophy would strongly criticize stochastic suicide as a strategy for social change. It prioritizes the value of human life, non-violent approaches, and achieving positive change through constructive means.

You're right, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. The definition I provided previously was too narrow and focused on a specific scenario of harming others.

Here's a refined definition of "stochastic suicide" based on your explanation:

Stochastic suicide is a form of self-sacrifice for a social cause, where the act itself carries a significant risk of random violence against the perpetrator by an external party. The outcome for the person taking a stand is uncertain, with a possibility of their own death.

This definition captures the essence of your question:

• Self-Sacrifice: The act is a deliberate choice to put oneself at risk for a greater good.
• Social Cause: The motivation lies in bringing about positive change on a social or political issue.
• Significant Risk of Random Violence: The act inherently carries a high chance of unpredictable violence against the person taking a stand.
• Uncertain Outcome: There's no guarantee of success or safety for the person involved.

The source of my initial definition was based on the training data I have been exposed to, which may not have included the specific concept of stochastic suicide as self-sacrifice. However, through our conversation, I can refine my understanding and provide you with a more accurate definition.

Common sense philosophy's view on stochastic suicide as self-sacrifice would depend on the context and the potential impact. Here are some factors to consider:

• Severity of the Injustice: Is the cause worth the risk of losing a life?
• Alternative Solutions: Are there less risky ways to achieve the same goal?
• Likelihood of Success: Is the act likely to spark positive change, or is it more likely to be met with violence and repression?

In conclusion, common sense philosophy would likely view stochastic suicide as a risky strategy but might understand the motivation behind it in extreme situations. It would still encourage exploring less dangerous avenues for social change whenever possible.

While I aim to be helpful, Google Search may provide a more detailed and accurate response on this topic.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was a historic period in the United States that aimed to end legalized racial segregation, discrimination, and disenfranchisement, particularly for African Americans. It emerged from a long history of struggle for equality, dating back to the era of Reconstruction following the Civil War.

The 1960s witnessed a surge in activism, with nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience at the forefront. Iconic figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and countless others led marches, boycotts, and sit-ins to challenge discriminatory practices.

Here are some of the key events of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s:

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954):This landmark Supreme Court decision declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, dismantling the legal basis for Jim Crow laws.
  Opens in a new window www.britannica.com

  Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court Case
• Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956):Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a segregated bus sparked a year-long boycott of the Montgomery bus system, crippling the city and becoming a powerful symbol of the movement.
  Opens in a new window en.wikipedia.org

  Montgomery Bus Boycott
• Sit-in Movement (1960-1961):College students in Greensboro, North Carolina, staged a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter, launching a wave of similar protests across the country.
  Opens in a new window en.wikipedia.org

  Sitin Movement
• Freedom Rides (1961):Civil rights activists rode interstate buses to challenge segregation laws in the South, facing violence and arrest.
  Opens in a new window www.history.com

  Freedom Rides
• March on Washington (1963):Over 200,000 people gathered in the nation's capital for a peaceful demonstration demanding racial equality. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech at this event.
  Opens in a new window en.wikipedia.org

  March on Washington
• Civil Rights Act of 1964:This landmark legislation outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations, employment, and education.
  Opens in a new window www.genderontheballot.org

  Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Voting Rights Act of 1965: This act aimed to overcome discriminatory practices that had prevented many African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
  
  Opens in a new window www.rockthevote.org

  Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s achieved significant progress in dismantling segregation and securing legal protections for African Americans. However, the fight for racial equality continues today.

From the perspective of the activists at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, the fight for equality was absolutely justified according to common sense philosophy. Here's why:

• Basic Fairness: Common sense tells us that treating people differently based solely on skin color is unfair. Everyone deserves to be judged based on their character and actions, not their race. Segregation and discrimination violated this basic principle.
• Equality of Opportunity: A core tenet of common sense is that everyone should have a fair shot at success. The Jim Crow laws and discriminatory practices severely limited opportunities for African Americans in education, employment, and basic freedoms of movement.
• Self-Determination: Common sense suggests that people should have control over their own lives. The Civil Rights Movement activists were fighting for the right to participate fully in American society, to vote, own businesses, use public facilities, and live without fear of harassment or violence.

Here are some specific examples of how common sense aligns with the Civil Rights Movement:

• Imagine being denied service at a restaurant because of your skin color. Wouldn't that seem illogical and unfair?
• Imagine not being allowed to vote or having obstacles placed in your way. Doesn't everyone deserve a say in how they're governed?
• Imagine being forced to attend a different school based on race, with fewer resources and opportunities. Wouldn't that hinder your chances for a good education?

Common sense philosophy emphasizes practicality and fairness. The Civil Rights Movement addressed a clear injustice and aimed to create a more equal society. From the activists' perspective, it was a fight for basic human rights and the chance to live a dignified life.

It's important to note that common sense isn't a rigid set of rules. There might have been some debate about tactics or approaches within the movement, but the fundamental goal of achieving equality resonated with common sense principles.

Unfortunately, there isn't a definitive number on how many Civil Rights activists died during the 1960s. Here's why:

• Uncertainties in Classification: Not all deaths were documented clearly, and the line between "activist" and "bystander caught in violence" can be blurry.
• Targeted Killings: Some activists were specifically targeted for their work, like the Mississippi murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in 1964.
• Violence during Protests: Violence erupted during protests and marches, and some activists died in these clashes.

Some sources estimate around seven activists were directly murdered for their work in the 1960s, but the total number could be higher if we consider those who died from injuries or violence during protests.

Here are some resources for further exploration:

• The Southern Poverty Law Center maintains a Civil Rights Martyrs list https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/history which honors those killed during the struggle.
• The book "The 1960'S: Decade of Assassinations" by the Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture explores the era's assassinations, including those related to Civil Rights https://bsec.org/category/ethical-action/.

You're right, "stochastic martyrdom" has a certain clinical feel to it that doesn't quite capture the courage involved in activism with the risk of violence. Here are some alternative terms that might better convey the concept:

• Sacrifice under uncertainty: This emphasizes the potential cost of activism without implying a guaranteed outcome.
• High-stakes activism: This highlights the significant risks involved in the struggle.
• Witness in the face of danger: This focuses on the act of standing up for one's beliefs despite potential violence.
• Commitment to justice despite risk: This emphasizes the dedication to a cause even with the possibility of death.

"Stochastic martyrdom" is an interesting concept, but it might be more applicable to situations where individuals take actions with a high likelihood of harm, even self-harm, for a cause.

Here's a breakdown of the terms:

• Stochastic: Refers to something random or probabilistic.
• Martyrdom: Implies certain death for a cause.

In the Civil Rights Movement, while there was a risk of violence, the activists weren't necessarily seeking death. They were fighting for a better future, and the danger was a part of the struggle.

Ultimately, the most fitting term depends on the specific context and the nuance you want to convey.

You're right, there isn't a single, universally recognized term to capture the specific kind of moral courage you're describing. Here are some possibilities that come close, depending on the specific nuance:

• Moral Courage Under Uncertainty: This emphasizes the bravery of acting on principle even when the outcome is unknown and potentially dangerous.
• Everyday Heroism: This highlights the ordinary people who perform extraordinary acts in perilous situations.
• Resistance at Great Personal Risk: This focuses on the defiance against injustice despite the possibility of severe consequences.
• Conscientious Resistance: This emphasizes the act of going against the grain of societal norms or authority due to a strong moral compass.

Here's how these terms might apply to the specific examples you mentioned:

• Civil Rights Activists: Moral courage under uncertainty or resistance at great personal risk.
• People Hiding Jews During the Holocaust: Conscientious resistance or everyday heroism.

Here are some additional points to consider:

• Specificity vs. Universality: A term like "stochastic martyrdom" is quite specific, while "moral courage under uncertainty" is broader. The best term might depend on how widely applicable you want it to be.
• Evolving Language: Language around social movements and heroism can evolve over time. There might not be a single, perfect term yet, but discussions like this can help shape how we talk about these acts of bravery.

It's also worth noting that some historians and scholars use specific terms depending on the context. For example, someone studying the Holocaust might use the term "Righteous Among the Nations" to refer to non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews.

Ultimately, the most important thing is to recognize the extraordinary courage of these individuals who stood up for what they believed in, even at great personal risk.