I think a feminist might say, with some justification, that the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc. are all institutions controlled by men. — T Clark

The feminist may well say that. However, depending on the area or Western country you live in, institutions are not always controlled by men. There are female police chiefs, judges, civil servants, and politicians (including presidents or vice-presidents, prime ministers, and chancellors).

And the point is that in any system only the very top of the hierarchy are not subordinate to anyone. Children are subordinate to parents, pupils to teachers, employees to bosses ....

This is my understanding of an oversimplified example of what "patriarchy" means in feminism. Here's my translation in to T Clark-speak - Women are not responsible for the society in which they live. Or more strongly, men are to blame. My problem with such statements is not so much they're wrong, although they are, it's that they are deeply disrespectful to women. And men too, for that matter, but that's not the issue I'm trying to deal with. — T Clark

The term "patriarchy" - with all the negative connotations - also occurs among left-wing and far-left groups where it tends to crop up in slogans like "smash patriarchy" that appear side-by-side with "smash capitalism", etc., at some rallies.

I think one problem with the "feminist" view of patriarchy as a system where women are subordinate to men, is that the reality is we all take orders from the police, courts, civil service, politicians, etc., and are subordinate to some authority or another.

In any case, you don't often see men in Western society with an army of women under their command, or going out of their way to "exploit" and "suppress" women.

And, of course, whilst in the West we are waging divisive culture, race, and gender wars, other truly repressive and violent regimes are on the march in Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc.

Women can be scientists, athletes, philosophers, CEOs, soldiers etc just like men. It stands to reason they can also be dictators, — darthbarracuda

Not only that, but in a dictatorship power would be held by one dictator, so I don't think it would make much difference. Would a female Hitler or Stalin be better than a male one?

But I agree that patriarchy seems to be related to physical and biological differences between men and women. Of course women can be soldiers, etc. But the question is whether they can be soldiers and raise children at the same time.

Taking the dictionary definition of “patriarchy” as “male-dominated social system, with descent through the male line” and “matriarchy” as “female-dominated social system, with descent through the female line”, it looks like all successful societies have been male-dominated or "patriarchal".

It seems to be the case that societies that are competitive, assertive, and aggressive, tend to be more successful than others. Currently, those where women play a greater role in making policy, as in Western countries, seem to be on the retreat, and those where men are in control, as in China and Islamic states, are on the rise.

In any case, as we have no examples of successful societies run on the matriarchal model, the benefits or otherwise of a matriarchal system can only be hypothetical.

Even so, the fact remains that the philosopher-king isn't actually a king with hereditary privileges. Au contraire, the philosopher-king is simply a person given the responsibility of running the government for as long as possible, physically and mentally. That means the word "king" in philosopher-king is equivalent to what in US democracy is "president." — TheMadFool

Not exact equivalent but close.

The Greek term "basileus" did not necessarily mean hereditary ruler. And in some cases, the basileus was a member of a group of tribal chiefs.

Socrates’ philosopher-king would be elected from among the military caste. The (US) president is elected from among the political class (consisting of people with legal or business background).

Another difference would be that Athenian voters were male citizens with military training. So, practically, the military voted for one of their own.

In any case, it seems that Socrates wanted a ruler who was wise and just, and it shouldn't prove too difficult to find one if you have a pool of suitable candidates.

I meant the Abbasid caliphate, as you must know. They lasted over 400 years, which ain't that bad. — Olivier5

Sure. But the Roman Empire lasted much longer than 400 years. So Roman civilization must have been even better, and Egyptian civilization that lasted a few thousand years, must have been the best.

And as I said, the Abbasid Caliphate was not the beginning of an Arab ethnic and cultural Empire but the end of it, being the result of the Revolution of 750 AD against Arab domination. So it doesn't really qualify as "Arab civilization", nor could it have been, as most of its cultural features were non-Arab.

Plus, if this "brilliant Arab civilization" was so brilliant, why where the occupied countries rebelling against it in Egypt (Bashmurian revolts), Spain (Battle of Covadonga), and elsewhere?

Note that you can't see an Indian civilization in Arabia either. — Olivier5

I don't need to as I never claimed that there was one.

It was you who claimed that there was this "great Arab civilization". Unfortunately, you failed to explain where exactly it was, what it consisted in, and when it took place!

Yes, and that civilization surpassed Christian Europe. My above post was too long so quickly I say in this short post, the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is backward people who think they are doing the will of God, not so different from some Christians. War is good for religion and religion is good for war. — Athena

I think there is a contradiction there. We condemn war as "good for religion" but we glorify a religion that was spread through war.

Plus, by definition, Islamic religion and culture are based on Sharia Law which means subordination of women to men, floggings, amputations, beheadings, stoning, etc. and in more strict Islamic regimes, imposition of burkas, prohibition of music and alcoholic drinks, etc.

Islamic states are based on Sharia Law. You can’t separate Islam from Islamic Law.

Nobody said Pakistanis were Arab. I just said that there was once a brilliant Arab civilization. I don't think this is in dispute by any serious historian. — Olivier5

I’m assuming that by “Arab civilization” you mean things like architecture, language, literature. and other cultural traits that are characteristic of Arab populations.

I’m also assuming that if this “Arab civilization” existed, then it must have had a timeline, geographic location, and evidence to confirm it.

If so, then I can see no “Arab civilization” in India.

Even the Abbasid Caliphate based at Baghdad that you mention, was not the beginning of an Arab ethnic and cultural Empire but the end of it, being the result of the Revolution of 750 AD against Arab domination - at the same time when other uprisings against Arab rule were taking place in Egypt, Spain (Battle of Covadonga), and elsewhere.

This is the true reason behind “Islamic tolerance”: Muslim Arabs, being outnumbered, were forced to recognize other cultures and religions, and over time were replaced by non-Arabs and their language, culture, and “civilization” disappeared. The only thing that was left is Islam.

The Arabs had no literature, science, or philosophy comparable to those of Greece, Persia, and India. This is precisely why Arab rulers started the Translation Movement that had hundreds of Greek manuscripts translated into Arabic, and this played an important role in the Islamic Golden Age.

I think the Arabs invaded Christian and other countries to bring Islam, not “civilization”. :smile:

but let me ask you, O Apollodorus: as an example of what, exactly, did you give “manner of speech”? That has me confused. — Leghorn

Example of things other than "reminders".

He is not speaking thusly to everyone who voted for his acquittal; only to those few who notice that, by repetition, he is reminding them of the spuriousness of the traditional tales of the afterlife. — Leghorn

But you are not answering my question (which I have asked about three or four times): How does one speak of things said without using phrases like “as they say”, “according to things said”, etc.

Do you have prenatal memory of yourself existing as pure vous? I don’t either, and I’ve never met anyone who did. — Leghorn

If, as Socrates says, the soul pre-exists the current life, prenatal memories may be stimulated through philosophical inquiry and contemplation. Any one recollection can lead to general recall of knowledge we once actively had. Incidentally, there is a similar teaching in Buddhism and Hinduism. In any case, we are talking about Socrates’ Theory of Recollection as given in the Meno and repeated in the Phaedo (after the trial and his speech to the jury), not about you and me.

the history you go by was written by Christians and Jews who had the same bias. You should try to read Arabic authors. — Olivier5

The fact is that Egyptians, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Malaysians, and many others are NOT Arabs. Even Syrians and some other Arabic-speaking populations are not strictly Arabs.

Arab language and culture did not reach the more distant areas of Islamic influence. By the time it reached Persia, Islamic culture was no longer Arab. Mahmud of Ghazni who invaded India was of Turkic extraction, born in Afghanistan, and spoke Persian. The Mughal Empire was ruled by people of Turkic and Mongol descent and its culture and language were Persian, etc.

The only thing that actually unites those populations is Islam. So, in historical and cultural terms you could say “the Golden Age of Islam”. But I wouldn’t group them under “Arab civilization”.

Good question. But I think it might help to have some definitions of what constitutes "patriarchy" and "matriarchy". And, if possible, some examples.

That is what I am talking about: a dismissive, almost racist attitude towards them. It's very common in some corners of the 'west', unfortunately. — Olivier5

Egyptians, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians, Malaysians, and many others are not Arabs.

You may find some elements of Arab culture in populations that Muslim Arabs invaded and occupied in the Middle Ages but this does not amount to “great Arab civilization”. That sounds more like a political concept to me.

DNA Analysis proves that Egyptians are not Arabs – Egypt Independent

There are two options available:

4. Make all citizens philosophers (power distributed and knows how to govern)

OR

5. Philosopher-King (power concentrated and knows how to govern)

I can't fathom why he chose 5 over 4. Any ideas?

Speaking for myself, there's the practical issue of making every citizen a philosopher vs making only one person, the king, a philosopher. The latter is doable but the former is a pipe dream. — TheMadFool

Well, the options suggested in the Republic are:

Either (1) philosophers become kings in our states or (2) those whom we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophic intelligence, while the motley horde of the natures who at present pursue either apart from the other are compulsorily excluded, there can be no cessation of troubles for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race either (Rep. 473e-d)

Obviously, “philosophers become kings” really means some philosophers. Even if you made the whole population philosophers, only a small percentage would actually rule. In other words, in option (1) you select the best from a pool of philosophers which, in my view, makes sense.

Option (2) seems more problematic. The king whom you are trying to make a philosopher may not be the best material for the purpose.

So, the best option seems to be (1), e.g., train the military class in political philosophy and then select one individual that seems best suited for the role of king.

And if Socrates was a monotheist or monist, then having the city-state ruled by one monarch would be a reflection of the divine order that admits one ultimate authority or power over everything else.

It's complicated alright. But there's no reason to systematically dismiss the Arabs. It was once a great civilization, until the sack of Baghdad at the very soonest, they were the smartest guys around. — Olivier5

Well, I don't think it's a matter of "dismissing the Arabs". More like asserting historical fact.

The very concept of Arabs being "a great civilization" is doubtful - unless you take the typical American approach of calling everyone in the region "Arabs". When I ask Arabs which Arab country they think comes top in terms of history, culture, civilization, and language, they immediately say Egypt or Syria with Saudi Arabia always getting a thumbs down.

There is a very good historical reason for this. Egypt and Syria had great civilizations of their own and later came under Persian, Greek, Roman, and Christian-Hellenistic rule before being invaded and conquered by Arabs. In contrast, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, had nothing. This is precisely why Muslim Arabs were forced to adopt other cultures in order to control the new territories they conquered.

The resulting "great civilization" that brought together Greek, Persian, Indian, and other cultural elements under Islamic rule was at most "Islamic" but not Arab.

Jesus calling God ‘Father’, others corroborating this relationship, and even Jesus calling himself ‘God’s son’ - none of this means he is actually the son of God. — Possibility

Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority.

As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.

However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.

I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” ....

That is why the Muslim conquest happened so rapidly: the people like liberators. — Olivier5

I think the Muslim conquest happened because constant wars had left the Byzantine and Persian empires weakened.

And the notion that the populations conquered by Muslim Arabs felt “liberated” seems doubtful to say the least. The Spanish definitely did not feel liberated and the same applies to North African and Mid Eastern populations.

Resistance to Muslim occupation was in fact very common and ranged from passive non-cooperation and flight to sabotage and armed uprisings. In Egypt, which had a Christian-majority population for several centuries after the Muslim conquest, there were at least nine Christian uprisings between 694 and 832 alone:

Bashmurian revolts - Wikipedia

And let's not forget that the West re-learned it's philosophy and math basically from the muslims. The Dark Ages were quite dark, you know. — ssu

I'm assuming that by "the West" you mean Western Europe. I agree that the Dark Ages were possibly quite dark in Finland and some other parts of Western Europe.

In contrast, the parts of Eastern Europe under Greek control (Eastern Roman Empire) had no need to re-learn philosophy from the Arabs. On the contrary, it was the Arabs who learned from the Greeks and transmitted some of that knowledge to Western Europe!

Back in the day, they were looking forward and were willing to adopt what they could learn from others. But I think the Taliban and ISIS are looking backwards, and therefore it will not succeed. This time the Taliban pushed away the people who could have helped them move forward. — Athena

They were willing to learn from others primarily because they lacked the knowledge the others possessed and that the Muslims needed to control the conquered territories. They learned how to run an empire from those who already had an empire, i.e., the Greeks, etc.

Of course the Taliban and ISIS are looking backwards, but this is true of Islam in general. In fact, Islam started as a movement of return to the past. This is why the Christians called them Ishmaelites. Muslims thought that Judaism and Christianity were distortions of Abraham and Moses' original teachings and that Islam, as transmitted through Abraham's son Ishmael was the true religion.

So, it may be said that, by definition, Islam was (and is) a backward-looking religion.

This is an interpretation that equivocates ‘Jesus’ with ‘God’, and the Bible with ‘His word’. — Possibility

Correct. However, I think that the equivocation is understandable in light of the fact that in the Bible Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" and as conceived by God's agency (Holy Spirit).

And if the Bible is not the word of Jesus/God, how can we know what Jesus/God taught?

The US did a lot of that. I wonder if China picked up the technique from the US or if it was convergent evolution. — frank

Of course they did. This is what they founded the World Bank, the IMF, and other financial institutions for.

But you are right, the Chinese are quick learners and they have carefully studied the modus operandi of the British and Americans. They are highly intelligent, disciplined, and focused. They know what they want and they'll get it. They are like a larger and more lethal version of Nazi Germany. And because their main method of warfare (at least for now) is economic, it is very difficult if not impossible to stop them.

If Socrates really did not believe in the Gods worshiped at Athens then perhaps he could be described as an "atheist" in this narrow sense. However, this has not been established. And if he believed in other deities as implied in the official indictment, then he wasn't an atheist in the modern sense either.

Because Afghanistan falls within their geographical sphere of influence — Michael Zwingli

Not only that, but China is aiming to build an economic corridor through Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey to Iraq and other Mid East countries where it can get its hands on oil fields.

China's "debt-trap diplomacy" entails making large loans to small countries in exchange for influence over their economy and politics.

See for example the case of Montenegro (Southeast Europe) where the government has bought into a Chinese-financed road construction project:

Two sleek new roads vanish into mountain tunnels high above a sleepy Montenegrin village, the unlikely endpoint of a billion-dollar project bankrolled by China that is threatening to derail the tiny country's economy.
The government has already burnt through $944 million in Chinese loans to complete the first stretch of road, just 41 kilometres (25 miles), making it among the world's most expensive pieces of tarmac.
Chinese workers have spent six years carving tunnels through solid rock and raising concrete pillars above gorges and canyons, but the road in effect goes nowhere.
Almost 130 kilometres still needs to be built at a likely cost of at least one billion euros ($1.2 billion).
Critics question how the rest of the road will be paid for and highlight environmental damage caused by the construction along with corruption allegations over the awarding of work contacts.
The road is meant to connect the Adriatic port of Bar in the south with the Serbian border in the north, with the intention that the Serbians will then extend it to their capital, Belgrade.
It is unclear where the money will come from or how Montenegro -- a country with a GDP of 4.9 billion euros -- will repay its existing debt to China.
If Montenegro cannot pay, it faces arbitration in Beijing and could be forced to give up control of key infrastructure, according to a copy of the contract seen by AFP.

Montenegro learns true cost of China-backed $1 bn road to nowhere - France 24

Basically, a form of economic banditry ...

Basically, it is saying that the West not only failed to bring any positive changes to Afghan culture but completely failed to understand the locals and turned them against the West:

To many Americans, that may seem an outlandish claim. The coalition, after all, poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan. It built highways. It emancipated Afghan women. It gave millions of people the right to vote for the first time ever.
All true. But the Americans also went straight to building roads, schools and governing institutions — in an effort to “win hearts and minds” — without first figuring out what values animate those hearts and what ideas fill those minds. We thus wound up acting in ways that would ultimately alienate everyday Afghans ....
U.S. forces turned villages into battlegrounds, pulverizing mud homes and destroying livelihoods. One could almost hear the Taliban laughing as any sympathy for the West evaporated in bursts of gunfire.
Sometimes, yes, we built good things — clinics, schools, wells. But when the building was done, we would simply leave. The Taliban would not only destroy those facilities, but also look upon the local community with greater suspicion for having received “gifts” from America ...

This, of course, is not surprising as the military is not an institution designed for nation building.

Anyway, after 20 years out of government, it is doubtful the Taliban are able to run the country. With the banks closed, and the state unable to pay its employees, public services can collapse and civil unrest can start any time ....

I paid nothing to read it. Just click the "FREE" option on the left and close the ad window.

Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer. — Ross

So, this is the meaning of "following" Jesus/God. But is there anything known about "loving" him?

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury[/b] — Ross

Well, that sounds more like what Christian love is not, than what it is.

And would you say that this love applies to Jesus/God too, or just to our neighbor?

So if the Taliban won't tolerate the sound of a woman's voice on TV or the radio (from some dubious report I read), then there are a lot of women who agree with that? — frank

For the Taliban to have this kind of military success there must be substantial popular support. But here is an interesting perspective on the situation:

When comparing the Taliban with the United States and its Western allies, the vast majority of Afghans have always viewed the Taliban as the lesser of two evils.

I was a combat interpreter in Afghanistan, where cultural illiteracy led to U.S. failure – Washington Post

The New Testament doesn't seem especially unclear on this. Are you saying it is hard to understand what Jesus recommends? — Tom Storm

My question was addressed to @Ross.

He/she seems to have their own definition of "worship" and "follow". How can we have a discussion without a definition of terms?

Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism. — Ross

I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice?

What do you do? Do you send them thoughts of love? Hugs and kisses? A large check?

What is it that constitutes Christian love?

What is the etymology of "Jamon"? "Ham" comes from Old English, meaning back of the knee, or thigh. — Bitter Crank

I think "jamon" is from French "gambon/jambon" (“ham”), from "gambe" (“leg”) and apparently cognate with English "ham".

jamón - Wiktionary

Once thoroughly defeated by the Allies in 1945, the Germans returned to their normal national behavior. — Bitter Crank

They were under military occupation for ten years, divided into Eastern (Russian communist) and Western (US capitalist) zones, and subjected to systematic propaganda and brainwashing. Nothing "normal" about it IMO.

I thought Socrates' antipathy towards democracy was no secret. If memory serves, he was more in favor of wise kings. The so-called Philosopher King was a notion he invented and his student Plato developed further. — TheMadFool

In Plato’s Gorgias, Callicles suggests that society should be ruled by intelligent and courageous men irrespective of other virtues like self-control and righteousness, and invites Socrates to join his group.

Socrates replies by inviting Callicles to join him in his belief in righteousness and divine judgement in the afterlife:

And I invite all other men likewise, to the best of my power, and you particularly I invite in return, to this life and this contest, which I say is worth all other contests on this earth; and I make it a reproach to you, that you will not be able to deliver yourself when your trial comes and the judgement of which I told you just now (Gorg. 526e).

The concept of philosopher-king has been much misunderstood. I think the idea was to train philosophers to rule wisely. This is what it really boils down to, wise and just rule, in accordance with the established standards of ethical conduct based on the four virtues (self-control, courage, prudence, and righteousness), etc., and a proper legal system.

But you are right, it may be described as a utopian vision and it is doubtful that Socrates and Plato intended to implement everything exactly as discussed in the Republic. Still, Greek rulers tended to be more democratic that those of Persia or Egypt, for example.

It may be produced largely for export. But you don't need to be Japanese to enjoy it. :smile:

Description for the poor American? — frank

You don't look poor to me. But here's the description:

Jamon iberico - Wikipedia

Basically, the pigs are allowed to roam around in oak forests and feed naturally on acorns, chestnuts, etc.

Just don't let the Taliban find out .... :smile:

Maybe just nuke the lot of them? — Bitter Crank

How is changing culture "nuking" them?

What I'm saying is that regime change doesn't work without culture change.

We did that in Germany after WW2, but we are no longer prepared to do that. So, we are kidding ourselves whilst someone is making billions of dollars in the process.

And it isn't you or me. Or the Afghan people ....

:up: Eso si. That's more like it.

Jamon iberico de bellota, my favorite. And it will keep the Taliban away, too! :grin:

Which is just: who will adapt to climate change most successfully? — frank

No one. Global warming means Latin America, Africa, and India will migrate further and further north. What will happen after that, no one can tell.

This actually is a primary reason why the house of cards fell down. All the money poured into Afghanistan made it simply totally impossible for the Afghan nation with it's own revenues to support such a large bureaucracy. — ssu

Correct. Western liberalism (and any developed society in general) is an extremely costly project that can only be sustained with massive injections of cash from outside without a strong economy.

You can run a guerrilla war on opium plantations but not a country. So, Afghanistan was a bottomless black hole to throw billions into.

If you are serious about solving the problem, you introduce a more civilized culture or religion, build the economy, and put your political system in place after you've done that. Otherwise, you are building a house of cards and are kidding yourself just like it happened in Iran, Iraq, etc.

After WW2, Europe tried to impose socialism on the Mid East and North Africa from the top down. The result was that Islamic resistance started to form and it all ended in a huge anti-Western backlash.

I think Don Quixote had plenty of Latin food but, apparently, it did not help.

Or, perhaps, he had too much of it .... :smile:

But I guess that is somehow immoral that those countries would not do anything to help them out without money... — javi2541997

I see what you mean. Good point. Those countries tend not to like refugees any more than the West does. Or if they take them, they make the West pay for it.

And, of course, most of the cash invariably goes into the wrong pockets ....