Day 1: What is a Friend? - A Stoic's Perspective

A disloyal friend? Hardly anybody would pronounce their desire for a disloyal friend. However, and more importantly for this sharing of ideas, we must consider what loyalty demands. And for now, we will consider its demand for trust. According to Seneca from one section of one letter from one book, friendship requires absolute trust. One should judge a person before declaring them to be a friend, and then after befriending them, they should confide in them with anything once considered one's own. However, one should be careful not to befriend a person AND THEN judge them. That, according to Seneca, is the improper route towards friendship.

Of course, like with all philosophy, this can be interpreted in a limitless amount of ways which could all be considered correct. I have drawn my own conclusions (which will most definitely change) which I will share.

Friendship should be exclusive. Speaking contemporarily, I'd say that Facebook epitomizes that point that Seneca is attempting to share (and if one were to read his passage on friendship, which is from Letter II of Letters from a Stoic, they would learn that this idea of friendship is connected with aimless wandering). If you have a person who you consider to be a friend, then you should ask yourself whether or not you are prepared to speak with them like you speak with yourself. Is there anything that you want to keep hidden from them? And if there is, then ask yourself why you don't feel comfortable to entrust them.

In regards to the judging apsect, I have to think much more about it before I can present even a half-respectable interpretation. Please offer your interpretations, I'd really enjoy reading them and discussing them (because, of course, I am far from understanding myself).

Freedom, Too Understood to be Pursued

The people are the ones who define their freedom, so, how can one not expect it to be restricted by the limitations of the nature of the human mind? Freedom shouldn’t be defined by an person, but should be pursued until death. It is never fully attained.

Stereotypes: Things we Consider and Apply, then Forget, then Think About Again, Then Forget, Then Think About Again

Asians drive poorly; whites are supremacists and capitalists; Mexicans are lazy; blacks are criminals; Native Americans do peyote, dance in the rain and speak of their ancestors; and anything less than "doctor" is a failure for Indian people.
Of course, the grouping of these stereotypes are what cause them to be stereotypes. For example, claiming that "all" blacks are criminals is what causes it to be a stereotype. If one were to say that an individual black person was a criminal, it wouldn't lead to a the generalization of a whole population (although that is untrue in many instances).
But I would guess that a wide number of people understand that stereotypes don't apply to everyone. Whether or not the majority of Americans believe that these stereotypes apply to most people of that category is unknown to me--but I would certainly hope that it's not the case.
But to understand these stereotypes, we must understand that they don't apply to ethnicity but to culture. Korea, where driving isn't nearly as structured or necessary as the United States, obviously demands drivers to follow less rules. Would that be the causation of the label of bad driver? If it were, then it would be reasonable to assume that asian drivers, over time, would become better drivers as they adjust culturally to living in the United States. So that means that most young, asian drivers are already at the same level as young white drivers. I don't know. I'm not knowledgable or educated enough on the matter to know, but I can at least offer the perspective.
For years, I have been arguing and trying to prove the falsifiability of such stereotypes. I think them to be more malevolent than beneficial and consider them to a simplified form of already simplistic thinking. But it is difficult to defend a stance when people--such as police officers or older people who are seen as having great experience--do not agree. And I can praise myself for delving deeper into the issue and for considering both perspectives--at least the generally held ones (whatever that means). And for that, I can say that I've been a more progressive person.