Awakening Your Inner Socrates

The unexamined life is not worth living

Socrates, The Apology

When I was in college, there was a homeless guy named Joe who camped out in the campus coffee shop. He had long white hair and a ZZ-Top-style beard. He lived in the bushes and spent his days cranking out one-page manifestos on an old-school typewriter.

If Socrates lived today, he wouldn’t be a professor, aspiring toward tenure. He would be Joe.

Read the original post

An unattractive man with bulging eyes, Socrates spent his days strolling barefoot and unwashed through the streets of Athens.

He couldn’t care less about power, money, or fame.  His devotion was to the examined life – to asking is it true? He asked this of the so-called “wise men” of his day and found that they lived in a state of delusion.  Their certain “truths” turned out to rest on flimsy foundations.

This led Socrates to a radical view of wisdom. Real wisdom, he realized, is knowing that you don’t know.

This week’s experiment – explore Socratic questioning as a tool of transformation.

I’m not going to walk around questioning the unexamined beliefs of others.  Not only would this put me at risk of a restraining order, but it would also be too easy.  Catching the unquestioned blind spots of others is simple – just watch a few episodes of American Idol if you don’t believe me.

What I want to explore is much more challenging.  It involves going inside to find my own unquestioned beliefs and then asking: is it true?

I’m most interested in beliefs that limit possibilities:  beliefs like “I can’t,” “I wish,” “I should,” or “If only I.”  These beliefs not only create suffering, they also often presume false wisdom.

Here’s an example.  After a serious bike accident, I became devoted to the belief “my neck shouldn’t be so tight.”  I was open to questioning the existence of God and reality itself, but not this sacred belief.  Like the so-called “wise men” of Socrates’ time, I was certain that “I knew.”

When I questioned it, I saw it wasn’t true – the tension was, in many ways, a gift.  And then something crazy happened – it started to go away.

Here are a few practical tips for taking this inner Socratic journey:

1. Identify Limiting Beliefs – Ask: what are my stressful or limiting beliefs?  Where am I telling myself “I can’t,” “I should,” or any other story that limits freedom?

2. Go Socratic on it – Each day, I plan to choose one limiting belief and live with the question: is it true?  This is not a one-minute exercise.  If you’re like me, you will instinctively say “yes.”  Sit with it, meditate on it, and play with it – then see if it’s still true.

Please join me and keep me posted on your experiences using this page or the Life Beyond Logic Facebook Page (where you can also upload pictures and videos).  On Wednesday, I’ll post clips from an interview I did with Byron Katie, a modern master of inner Socratic questioning (for more on Katie check out the Is It True? practice).

Update: Life Beyond Logic Interviews Byron Katie
posted March 4, 2011 by Nate

This week we explored Socratic questioning as a tool of inner transformation.  Here is my interview with Byron Katie — a world-renowned healer and teacher who has developed a practice she calls “The Work.” Like Socrates, Katie encourages us to question those beliefs that create suffering and limit possibilities.   Check out my Is it True? practice for more on the connection between Socrates and The Work.

For examples of Katie doing the work, go to

If you are interested in reading more about the philosophy behind The Work, I recommend her books Loving What Is and A Thousand Names For Joy.


  1. Devon Walker says:

    I am reluctant to assume as you seem to, that people know how to “Sit with it, meditate on it, and play with it.” In my experience, allot of the socratic “is it true” impuse has been bred out of people in one way or another. From the time we are born in this country we are told what we can and cannot do. What is valuable and what is not and exactly how to go about finding and acquiring these things. Its no coincidence that when asked “what you want to be when you grow up” a 5 year old will nearly always say fireman, doctor, baseball player or something else equally stereotypical.

    Or take “Is it true?” and apply it to gender roles. Its no co-incidence that many average american women has grown up and said things like “im just not interested” to things like politics, philosophy, mechanics, sports. Likewise men for cooking, nursing, art, ect cetera. Take gay rights, or any number of backwards and antiquated societal umbilical scars.

    The fact is, few people have the ability, training and desire to truly question what they believe. It is right and good to encourage this kind of questioning, but I wonder how much impact we can actually make without changing something fundamental about the culture of our society, or perhaps even the conformity addiction that seems to be a part of the human condition…

    • Nate says:

      Thanks so much for your thoughts on this Devon. I think you are correct in saying that most of us will instinctively accept rather than question our limiting beliefs — particularly those that are the most deeply ingrained in us. But I think engaging in this kind of questioning is really the essence of living philosophically. Socrates never accepted the conventional wisdom at face value. He questioned, examined, and challenged the beliefs that others accepted without reflection.

      Is this an easy thing to do? Definitely not. As we know, Socrates ended up having to drink the hemlock because of it. That said, I believe that it is possible for all people — not just those with fancy academic credentials — to engage in this kind of questioning. It does, however, take courage and deep curiosity to be willing to let go of beliefs that sit at the very core of our sense of self.

    • Eileen says:

      Maybe that’s why those Greek guys were so into dialogues… it’s hard for people who grew up blocking out the questioning impulse to suddenly call everything back into question all on their own, but if you have someone pushing you and asking questions…

    • peter says:

      Can you know if that is really true, that other people do not have the bla bla bla?

  2. Jennifer Martinez says:

    In my own life, professional and personal, I have spent a lot of time thinking about questions like this. My own inspiration comes from the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire who pioneered an educational approach that we now call critical pedagogy. Freire actually was a student of Socrates (and Marx, Jesus, and others), but he contributes a few additions that I find interesting. First, Freire’s work suggests that uncovering beliefs in order to seek the truth (what he calls ‘reality’) is to be done in dialog with another, or many others. Beliefs or experience, he argues, are always subjective and objective. That is, they are personally experienced by someone who exists within a social context. Because we cannot step out of ourselves, e.g. erase our personal history, identity, and emotional/intellectual proclivities, it is imperative that we explore the truth in relationship to others. Through dialogical questioning, we both wake up to new truths.

    Second, because our beliefs are informed by our social context (as the previous comment makes note of), it is not enough to just ask ‘is this true?’ We must also ask ‘where does this come from?’ It is this question that allows us to unravel the systems and belief structures that inform our subjective experience. For example, Freire tells of an experience when he was in Chile in the 1970s. He made it a habit to work with rural educators and visit with peasant farmers who were learning to read. Freire was a professor of education and, until he was exiled from Brazil because of the dictatorship, he was the Minister of Education. In other words, he had titles and professional acclaim. These peasants were not even literate. So on one occasion when he asked to meet with a group and have a dialog, they sat silently, waiting for him to speak. When he didn’t, someone finally said, ‘We don’t know anything. You must be the one to tell us what you know because you know a lot.’ On an earlier occasion he had challenged this belief by playing a game with the group where each (he and they) would ask, ‘Do you know what X is?’ Every response in the negative earned a point. Freire knew a lot about philosophy, while the peasants knew a lot about farming. In the end, they left the game tied. Freire had disproven their belief – they did in fact ‘know something.’ (a practical application of the question ‘is it true?’)

    On this occasion, however, Freire said, ‘Let’s suppose for a moment that is true. I know things and you do not. I have an diploma and you do not. Why do you think that is?’ The conversation led the group of peasants down the path to analyzing their relationship to the land, their relationship to their boss, the political economy of Chile, the cultural beliefs of their society related to indigeneity, women, the poor. They began to see the reality of their lives, the truth, if you will, that they didn’t know existed.

    Finally, the exploration for truth/reality must be grounded in a commitment to love. Questioning or intellectual analysis alone is not enough to find truth. If we are to find truth together, we must do so through love of ourselves, of each other, and of others. For Freire this is key because truth, for the sake of it, is not the end goal. The reason we seek truth – and want others to seek truth – is because we seek liberation, freedom from the chains (social, political, spiritual, emotional, relational, etc.) that bind us. Love is the basis that makes this possible.

    • Nate Klemp says:

      Thank you for your thoughts on this. Your discussion of Freire adds some much needed nuance to our thinking about the process of Socratic questioning. I find myself most compelled by the final point: the idea that this exploration ought to be grounded in a commitment to love. In my experience, the motivation of participants in this kind of dialogue plays a huge role in shaping the outcome. In my academic work, I like to cite Habermas on this point (who distinguishes between conversations driven by strategic intentions and those driven by an orientation toward mutual understanding).

      When love is absent, when the orientation of the conversation is toward winning rather than understanding, I find myself clinging even more tightly to my own truths. My desire to be right ossifies, and I am unwilling to open to the possibility that I might be wrong. But when the conversation arises from a commitment to love and mutual understanding, I feel much more open to transformation and to exploring the possibility that I may not know what I think I know.

      The social point is also interesting. Socrates did most of his questioning in a social context, through the process of dialectic. But I’m open to the possibility that this kind of questioning can happen in solitude as well. I’ve experiencing this first-hand a number of times. For instance, let’s say I have the limiting belief, “I should act more like a normal professor and stop writing this crazy blog.” If I get still and really sit with this belief (perhaps through yoga or meditation or prayer), I often find that a deeper, more intuitive, understanding emerges. On the surface, this belief might stress me out, but, in this place of deeper knowing, I am able to question the thought and see that it is not true. Emerson and Thoreau both talk about this experience. They describe it as an almost mystical experience – one where a deeper, more objective, form of wisdom flows through us.

      Thanks for such an insightful and thought provoking post!


  3. Sean McCaffrey says:

    Hi Nate, congrats on this new site/project! I’m a political hack and by no means a scholar or philosopher, but I like what I see/read.

    I’m not sure, however, I agree with everything in the premise about Socrates. Admittedly, we know relatively little about the man, but we don’t know for a fact he didn’t accept payment for his teaching “services”. Moreover, we can be pretty certain that he was a deadbeat dad who walked out on his wife and three kids. I haven’t read much in the way of Socrates teachings, but what price did he, or others, pay for his decision to wander around philosophizing?

    And as for money, power and fame, he was a recognized and successful war hero, admired for his skill, strategy and success on the battlefield. Moreover, post-warring and post-teaching, he entered the second oldest profession: politics. FYI, we’ve got a few college professors in the pipeline, too! LOL

    Anyway, I’m off-subject. I asked a few people what they knew about Socrates, and the “best” answers I got were that he was poisoned and that it was hemlock which killed him. That he was sentenced to death and knowingly drank his death sentence didn’t seem to be common knowledge.

    …and that really brings me to my point. Socrates was a great thinker, no doubt. More so, he was a great moralist. But I believe he shared some of the same failings of the political extremists of today (from the Olbermanns of the left to the Ron Pauls of the right): there was no middle ground.

    Socrates opposed the oppressive laws of a system he wanted to change. His benefactors, supporting him to the end, gave him an opportunity to escape and leave Greece. But to Socrates, who pledged to uphold the law (even those he felt were wrong), he drank his death sentence, martyring himself.

    For myself, and if Socrates were to read this blog, I’d share a quote from Jefferson from which I take inspiration. You can find it inscribed inside his memorial on the Potomac: “I swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    In answer to your original challenge, go ahead and “go Socratic on it”, but if you don’t get the answers you want, or hope to find, my advice is stop short of the hemlock. Then “go Jefferson on it”… it is the eternal in mankind, womankind… peoplekind… which keeps us thinking, evolving, etc. I like what Jennifer closed with above: “The reason we seek truth – and want others to seek truth – is because we seek liberation, freedom from the chains (social, political, spiritual, emotional, relational, etc.) that bind us.” And as Jefferson also said “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

    Socrates gave up; we shouldn’t.

    • Nate Klemp says:


      This is great stuff. I can’t claim to be an expert in the biography of Socrates, but I do think that I have a slightly different reading of his lived experience. For instance, you say that after serving in the military, he decides to enter into politics and play the game in the way that modern professors aspire toward tenure. But in the Apology, Socrates tells us that he never entered into politics because he knew that the philosophical and political life were incompatible. He actually says that this decision was based, in part, on the voice in his head that helped guide him throughout his life.

      It’s true that he had an out at the end of the trail. And that had he played his cards differently, he likely would not have had to drink the hemlock. As readers of the Apology, it’s easy to view his actions as a bit crazy — “Why not try to evade death?” But Socrates didn’t view dying as a bad thing. He tells us that it is one of two things: either it’s like the best sleep of your life (the kind where you don’t even dream) or it’s transports you to a new realm of existence. So on my reading, this was a man who had questioned his beliefs so thoroughly, that, even death, no longer frightened him.

      In the end, I think Jefferson and Socrates have a lot in common (though this would get way more complicated if we brought in the political utopia Socrates envisions in the Republic). Both call for us to question and challenge existing power structures in the name of freedom.

    • Devon Walker says:

      Sean, love the conversation starter.
      I understand that you are not a scholar, a philosopher or an historian, however I must profess, that to endorse this type of doctrine on the basis of such extrapolation seems more than a little off base. So, a couple concerns, if you will.

      1. “Moreover, we can be pretty certain that he was a deadbeat dad who walked out on his wife and three kids.”

      I am not sure of the relevance or accuracy of this claim. I presume your aim is to apply some of our family values in a way that discounts Socrates’ Ethos and the potency of his ethical credibility. This attempt fails for two reasons.

      First, your attempt to damage the ethos of Socrates through ethical appeal is directly contradicted later in your comment when you also claim: “More so, he was a great moralist.”

      Second, your unabashed use of pathos in calling him a “deadbeat dad who walked out” seems additionally suspect given your final claim about Jefferson. As you allow, Jefferson endorses a righteous condemnation of intellectual oppression. As the focus is on the idea, the context offers little relevance to regarding the character of his person. Your value appeal regarding Socrates is essentially the same as one regarding Jefferson. For example, one might say, “Jefferson was an unfaithful husband, who not only had slaves, but sired children with several.” It is not apparent that this claim has any relevance on a point one might try to make about the quality of Jefferson’s idea. Likewise, your point about Socrates’ conduct has little if any relevance regarding the quality of the Socratic question.

      2. “I asked a few people what they knew about Socrates, and the “best” answers I got were that he was poisoned and that it was hemlock which killed him. That he was sentenced to death and knowingly drank his death sentence didn’t seem to be common knowledge.”

      Here you make a very dubious appeal to popular opinion, as if to say, 1. There is a general misconception about Socrates. 2. We should be swayed in some way by popular ignorance. 3. The juxtaposition between being sentenced to death and knowingly dying somehow communicates moral reprehensibility.

      First, I will not deny your claim that there is a general misconception about Socrates. Your comment proves such as true well enough alone.

      Second, I object to some idea that widespread popular ignorance about the life of Socrates should have any argumentative weight when talking about one of his or Jefferson’s ideas. Are we to be shocked into disfavoring the Socratic question as a result of realizing that few people realize its value? Are we to be enveloped in doubt as to the viability of someone carrying out such a method without paying the price of plebian ignorance? Contrary, Plato demonstrates that it is this exact portion of the populace that shows Socrates to the chopping block. And if you say, “well I asked very educated, powerful and intelligent people about Socrates and this was their reply” then we can say it is the very point of this thread to help such people question their beliefs. As you might guess, an educated, powerful, and intelligent life unexamined is far more conducive to “tyranny over the mind” than any other. In this way, weather you intended too or not, the assertion that the juxtaposition between being sentenced to death and knowingly dying somehow communicates moral reprehensibility, undermines the integrity of this project in addition to your purported point about Jefferson.

      Third, implying that accepting a lawful death sentence is akin to suicide is (when examined), an invalid inference.

      3. “He shared some of the same failings of the political extremists of today (from the Olbermanns of the left to the Ron Pauls of the right): there was no middle ground.”

      I can understand how you might view Socrates’ submission to an unjust ruling, as akin to the idea of him not having an ideological middle ground. I also can see how you might insert political extremists into the equation by saying both Socrates and extremists who forsake middle ground do so by choice. But I am forced to maintain that this logic sequence missing the fundamental point.

      In addition to Nate’s point about Socrates not viewing death as bad. The claim that “Socrates opposed the oppressive laws of a system he wanted to change” is unequivocally false. In Plato’s “Crito”, Socrates is explicitly described as a man so satisfied with the Athenian legal system that he has hardly left the city’s walls. (Sections 52-53) Given this (and the fact that, as Nate points out, he was not involved with politics), we can see that you have made an error in relating Socrates to Olberman and Ron Paul. It is problematic to say that Socrates had a choice to oppose unjust laws and chose not too. The critical point is that from Socrates’ view, he had a choice to disobey an extremely just legal system. Which, if he is to be true to himself, is no choice at all.

      If Socrates had escaped, as offered in “Crito”, he would have been undermining a government that he believed in wholeheartedly. The decision to drink the Hemlock wasn’t “giving up” as you say, but rather the harder, more moral choice. Had he chosen to escape, he really would have been “giving up” his philosophical convictions brought about by self-examination.

      If Socrates was martyred in the way that you propose, then it was only because of a misunderstanding on the part of his followers, not because it was his intention to do so. Quite the opposite.

      4. “I swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

      Lastly, in the context of the illumination discussed, I maintain that Jefferson’s quote is not at all inconsistent or exclusive with regard to the Socratic question. In fact, in Plato’s account of the speech Socrates gave in his own defense, the “Apology” (meaning defense) contains a reminder that Socrates disobeyed the Thirty Tyrants installed by Sparta when the democracy was defeated in Athens in 404B.C.E. Through continued self inquiry, Socrates did find it appropriate to express eternal hostility towards a government that truly oppressed the mind. The government that put him to death in 399B.C.E. was not such a government; rather it was the reestablished democratic government that Socrates had been so exquisitely satisfied with all his life.

      5. In final objection to your comment to Nate’s original challenge, when you said “go ahead and ‘go Socratic on it’, but if you don’t get the answers you want, or hope to find, my advice is stop short of the hemlock. Then “go Jefferson on it”…”

      I will conclude by saying:

      It is only through “going Socratic” that any of us (including Jefferson) could discover how and when to oppose ideas that are oppressive. If we hope to find any answers to the difficult personal, political, cultural or philosophical moral questions that pervade our existence; We must, as is a matter of conscious, put the Socratic Question before the acceptance of any doctrine, decision or belief.

    • Jennifer Martinez says:

      I must say that I am a bit intrigued and perplexed by Devon’s response to Sean, but I think it reveals at least one other much-needed question: ‘to what end?’ or ‘for what purpose?’ (It may already be clear from my original post that simply asking ‘is it true?’ doesn’t seem to capture the full significance, or profundity, of what that question actually entails.)

      Needless to say, there are many benefits to be gained from a ‘Socratic method’ of inquiry, but one of the pitfalls of such a method is the power that the questioner wields over the defendant. It seems to me that to engage in truth discovery the questioner must begin by asking, ‘For what purpose do I want the truth to be known?’ The answer will inform the direction and the method that the questioning should adopt. For example, what was the purpose of Devon’s response? Was it to diagnose historical inaccuracy? If so, content and purpose seem aligned, but not method. Was it to deepen our collective thinking to a greater truth? Or was there some other purpose?

      A possible second question is, ‘What truth is most important, most relevant, most illuminating for this moment in this place?’ For example, while historical accuracy is certainly important (to the extent that it is possible), is it more important in this moment, in this discussion than artful engagement with new ideas – in this case, the idea of ‘tyranny over the mind of man’?

      No doubt there are many truths to be discovered, especially when it comes to debatable matters. However, it is wisdom that alerts us to their importance in time-space. Wisdom guides us to uncover one stone at a time, to revel in its secrets, and to absorb all that it has to tell us, before moving to the next.

      So I will return to this stone – ‘tyranny over the mind’ – because I actually think it is the fulcrum around which my post and Nate’s response was pivoting: whose tyranny, over whose mind? First we have my own tyranny over my own mind – the personal truths that we seek through meditation with examples of Emerson and Buddha in our view. Then there is someone else’s tyranny over my/our mind – the pain of oppression, subjugation, exploitation (the list goes on…) whose truth is perhaps best sought through the collective questioning that Freire refers to. Finally, there is my tyranny over someone else’s mind. If my will to power is greater than my will to truth, what are we to say to that?

  4. Nate Klemp says:

    I am loving the intensity of this debate over the life of Socrates and the conceptual features of his call to live an examined life. But I also want to make sure that in discussing these theoretical points, we don’t become distracted from the first-person experiment of Socratic questioning. It’s obviously important to clarify the conceptual nature of Socratic questioning. But one of the worries that I have about the academic approach to philosophy (and other theoretical disciplines for that matter) is that we often lose our selves in discussions of theory and never quite get to practice.

    So what I am most curious about right now is: have you experimented with this sort of radical questioning in your own life, with beliefs that limit or constrain your freedom? Have you experimented with this in social contexts, with friends or loved ones who have a similar desire to test out the truths that we hold dear?

    My experience so far this week has been that there is a kind of truth-reflex that surrounds a number of limiting beliefs. I think the thought and then I immediately believe it to be true. But when I sit with thought or question it with someone else, I start to see that I’m believing something I cannot know to be true. It’s a lot like Socrates’ claims on death. Most of us see death as a horrible thing. It almost feels like a hard-wired reflex. But when we question the belief, as Socrates did, we start to see that we have no idea what the actual experience might be like.

  5. “Most of us see death as a horrible thing. It almost feels like a hard-wired reflex.” It is. It’s obviously something that’s evolved in our DNA. Those that didn’t fear death probably didn’t make it to the age of child-bearing. Simple evolution.

    Doesn’t mean we can’t overcome our animal nature, though.

    • Nate says:

      I think that’s probably right. We’re wired to fear it, but we can — through conscious practice — overcome it.

      Thanks Dara!

  6. Meg Farness says:

    I enjoyed the interview! I find myself using the 4 questions more and more and have found it very helpful. I like your suggestion of questioning the limiting beliefs.

    • Nate says:

      Yeah, I think of Katie’s process as a really useful tool for letting go of beliefs that drain energy and no longer serve us. I sense that she has simply trained herself to replace the “it’s true” reflex with a more Socratic “is it true?” reflex.

      Thanks for your thoughts on this!

  7. Kathy says:

    So I have been reading everyone’s thoughts and comments…. and I find them all very interesting…. but it makes me wonder… if what you are all saying….”Is it True”?
    To circle back to Socrates and The Work… any one of you could ask your self… is what your saying True? Lets say you think Yes it is… who would you be with out that thought?
    Maybe what your saying is true? Maybe not… maybe a little bit? We get so caught up in OUR own beliefs… and understandings… its the only place to start from…. but what if… its not true? What if we really dont understand it all? What if there are other possibilities? What if? Do we need to be right? Do I need to be right? I dont know…. just some food for thought… some thing to think about! :)
    A wise man changes his mind, a fool never.
    thanks Kathy

    • Nate says:

      I love this insight and think it is a exactly where Socrates and Katie are coming from. It’s the idea that real wisdom involves a letting go of righteousness. This is so hard to do because we easily become attached to being right. But I find that when I let go of it, my own defensiveness drops and I open to a more curious way of being.

      Many thanks!

  8. Lorraine Nichols says:

    Hi Nate!
    Margi gave me your website when I saw her in Boulder this week and I enjoyed reading the interchanges and the interview with Byron Katie. I have a quote posted on my computer at work that I have had for years and can’t remember just now who said it. I love it though and think it relevant to this topic. It goes; “Things turn out best for those people who make the best of how things turn out”.
    I plan to follow your experimental site.
    Lorraine Nichols

    • Nate says:

      Thanks for your words and for your interest in the site. It should be a fun adventure!

  9. Johanna says:

    That is the problem: we all think that our thoughts are right. I learn by AA and in the Orthodox Church not believe my own thoughts. Not to say: that is the truth, I am right. And I believe I can only ask to my own thoughts if they are right. I cannot question anothers thoughts. And if I do only the other can give the answer.

    Johanna in the Netherlands.

    • Nate says:


      This is a really important point. I believe that the most profound form of Socratic questioning comes from within. We can question the beliefs of others but, as Katie might say, we end up in other people’s business. If the goal is transformation, it needs to start from within.

  10. Yvonne says:

    I look forward to dipping into this site. I have admired Byron Katie for some time and am an avid reader of spiritual and self/personal development books.
    I love what you have created and wish you all the best with it.

    I use BK’s 4 questions a lot and get even deeper self-awareness from them….


    • Nate says:

      Thanks Yvonne!

      Glad to hear that you are enjoying the site and look forward to interacting with you as we move forward!

  11. Lisa Smith says:

    Eckhart Tolle says something to the effect, when you live in the present and rely on life, not your life situation, answers will come to you and the right action can be taken.

    Living this way, (and I don’t mean totally never planning or using clock time when necessary) alleviates the necessity of worrying about anything in the future or past.

    I’m in it now, and I’ll keep you posted.

  12. Kara Warme says:

    I’m late on my reply here, but I have been thinking about the video and came to a question. I liked the point in your quote and from Byron Katie that the secret is to want what you have rather than spending life chasing things you “want”. I do believe strongly in the power of positive living and making the most of every situation. But I found myself pondering how to apply this approach to the forks in the road life inevitably brings. When we do have to make a difficult decision, be it between jobs or houses or foods, in many cases we don’t yet have the things we are deciding between. As I sat with this issue, I realized I was working from a belief that there was one best answer and therefore the possibility I could make a wrong decision. If I let that go, it lowers the pressure, but I still have to make a decision. So did Socrates do a lot of coin flipping?

Leave a Reply to Meg Farness Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>