How about a different thread started with the last post because the topic is different from Stoicism?
I find that post requires some heavy thinking. It would be nice to dismiss the whole thing by saying Aristotle was focused on the "golden mean". Not too much of anything. But without more careful thinking it would be wrong to drop the consideration with a comment of the golden mean.

I spent this morning looking for why I thought Aristotle was in favor of Sparta and didn't find anything that helpful. Maybe this weekend I can check my books. This is important to me because in my head is a whole story about how the Roman Church, through scholasticism, used Aristotle to justify its authority. You know like dominos if you knock one down they all go down. I am afraid my line of thinking needs to be corrected.

Which text from Aristotle supports this view? — Paine

This is not an Aristotle quote but it is quick and easy and considering our own concerns about corruption and the corruption brought on by money, We might want to know more about Sparta's relationship with the other Greek city-states. And regarding stoicism the Spartans are well known for complete obedience to military discipline and very harsh child-rearing practices intended to raise children to adults with strong endurance.

Philosophers

Lycurgus of Sparta, legendary founder of the city's constitution
Laconophiles nevertheless remained among the philosophers. Some of the young men who followed Socrates had been Laconophiles. Socrates himself is portrayed as praising the laws of Sparta and Crete.[5] Critias, a companion of Socrates, helped bring about the oligarchic rule of the Thirty Tyrants, who were supported by Sparta. Xenophon, another disciple of Socrates, fought for the Spartans against Athens. Plato also, in his writings, seems to prefer a Spartan-type regime over a democratic one.[6] Aristotle regarded the kind of laws adopted by Crete and Sparta as especially apt to produce virtuous and law-abiding citizens, although he also criticises the Cretans and Spartans themselves as incompetent and corrupt, and built on a culture of war.[7]

Greek philosophy, therefore, inherited a tradition of praising Spartan law. This was only reinforced when Agis IV and Cleomenes III attempted to "restore the ancestral constitution" at Sparta, which no man then living had experienced. This attempt ended with the collapse of the institutions of Lycurgus, and one Nabis established a tyranny in Laconia.[citation needed][8]

In later centuries, Greek philosophers, especially Platonists, often described Sparta as an ideal state, strong, brave, and free from the corruptions of commerce and money.[citation needed] These descriptions, of which Plutarch's is the most complete, vary in many details.[9] Many scholars have attempted to reconstruct which parts of these utopias the classical Spartans actually practised, which parts Cleomenes, and which later classical authors invented.[10] — Wikipedia

Did anyone watch "Hacking Your Mind"? The show is about personal data being gathered and then used to trigger a person's emotions so that the person buys something or votes for a particular candidate. I think we have mentioned how our emotions can lead to bad judgment.

What is happening today is the best reason to follow stoicism that I can think of. If we learn to control our reactions to emotions, we can better control our own brains and be less vulnerable to the brain hacking that is happening today.

Which text from Aristotle supports this view? — Paine

I love that question. I have made a note of it and need to search for where I picked up that information. I have a long weekend and will hopefully answer your question in a couple of days.

I agree that the emergence of classical Greek thinking was a conscious recognition of nature where beings are understood to have come into being according to what they are.

I don't share your confidence that the logic of history is a path from the purely theological to the purely secular. If one is to see history as having a telos, that perspective becomes a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed. That sort of dynamic is interesting to me and has merit in making models but I am not convinced by it as a theory of the world above all others.
seconds ago
12 — Paine

What is the logic of history? :nerd: Can I call in sick today and spend the rest of the day wrestling with the thoughts you stir in my head? I think one of the most pivotal points in time was when Sparta won the war with Athens. This defeat of the most glorious democracy the world had known up to that time caused Socrates to ponder what had Athens done wrong. Up to this moment in time, I think he was only playing word games his peers and enjoying the attention it got him. But when Athens lost the war, I think he took everything much more seriously, and that set the path Plato and Aristotle were to follow. Ethics is no longer just a personal matter, but leads to the glory or failure an entire city/state.

This is over-simplistic but Athens was very liberal with very little control of the individual. Sparta maintained strict control of everyone's life and Pericles had told Athens that Athenian values must be defended in war. We must defend our ideals against the wrongs of another.

Plato takes this up with the Republic and questioning what is the best way to have the ideal city/states. This is, personal ethics are important, but virtues such as courage and commitment to the state is even more important. A philosophy that is political. I don't know how political Stoicism is, but I think we can agree war or getting through a pandemic advances Stoicism.

Aristotle favored Sparta's very authoritarian organization, where ethics is not an individual matter but a state decision strictly enforced. Sparta won the war. Why? Why would Aristotle favor Spartan authoritarianism?

Then Rome conquers Greece and embraces Stoicism. quote

"Zeno taught that a happy life is one lived in accordance with the providential laws of cosmic nature (logos). He advocated virtue as being rooted in reason (the pathway to acceptance of logos) and believed that vice results from the repudiation of reason."

Okay, who has not said that? I think we have a problem if we cut Thales of Miletus and Heraclitus and others with a more scientific bent out of the discussion. One line of philosophy being a matter of cause and effect and focused on what causes things to happen, and another line of philosophy dealing more a personal matter of what makes a person happy. What is good and what is evil and why did Athens fail in war?

"a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed." Yes :nerd:

↪Athena
It is difficult for me to respond to many of your ideas because my experience with these various texts has been more along the line of trying to see a point of view I did not understand rather than forming a cogent view of history and the history of philosophy. I don't know what is happening. — Paine

Hum, I am listening to different professors explain philosophy and I wonder if that is fundamentally different from reading? Part of my thinking includes my personal response to the professor, if I like him or not. Or maybe it is my sex and age that shapes my thinking? For me, this has become a wonderful, ongoing conversation and you all are very important to it. It is more than just learning facts. It is looking at how history unfolds and the different characters who have shaped our understanding of the past and our potential for the future.

For me, thinking we are part of nature and all the secular thinking that goes with that, instead of the religious mythology that is all tied up with superstition, makes a huge difference in our understanding of democracy. The Greek focus was very worldly and about arete, human excellence. I see democracy as a realistic effort to raise the human potential. It is as we create it. Athens is a transition from superstitious thinking, to reasoning based on observation of nature. The gods aren't doing this and that to us. What happens is the consequence of what we do. We are not experiencing God's will but our own great and terrible moments, so we better"get it right" and have good outcomes instead of bad ones.

Stoic women. I appreciate this video.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=female+stoics#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f56f2efc,vid:puJa6Ls1PGA

:up: I stand corrected. It was my impression that Epictetus, along with Seneca, primarily influenced late Roman thinkers and mores. — 180 Proof

I really don't know that much, but I am learning. Wouldn't be wonderful to a color coded map that showed where ideas originated and traveled and perhaps change the shade of colors as the original idea was effected by the thinking in new places. It is easier for me to understand when I have visuals.

the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. — Ciceronianus

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? I am reminded of the Protestants who divided into several different denominations and each one thinking its interpretation of the Bible superior to the others. I have read the Romans were pretty obnoxious with their since of self importance, and these yahoos destroyed the Greek temples of learning. Oh dear, that reminds me of the culture wars in the US with its increasing potential of another civil war and the possibility that the nonintellectuals could do to the US what they did to Rome.

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. — Ciceronianus

Aristotle thought what separated humans from the rest of the animals is their capacity to be rational. That is just their capacity. Reasoning and rationality require constant effort to develop and obviously not many humans want to put in the effort. However, some of the Greeks thought the greatest happiness was the result of making that effort. In the US today some people are strongly opposed to those who think we should make the effort. What is superior about that? Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced?

Now I will argue against what I said by saying I have heard Roman women were gaining equality. That could make Rome more liberal. Conservatives oppose increasing liberalness while I think the suppression of women has been a draw back to western culture. We are witnessing a political battle between liberals and conservatives now and this seems to be the result of women gaining power. Athens was known for its suppression of women. For many the objection to Jesus was he was too feminine and we know Nietzsche thought Christianity destroys the vitality of civilizations. :lol: Would Nietzsche be a good stoic?

Oh dear, those thoughts seem wonder all over the place without making a point.
1. How could any Roman improve on the Greek considerations of ethics?
2. Is being soft a good thing?

↪Athena

If for no other reason, Plotinus is interesting because he would have been the first to object to Augustine co-opting him as the 'best Platonist'. Plotinus saw himself as carrying forward the best interpretation he could make in his circumstances. If somebody told him he was better than Plato, he probably would have lapsed into a coma.

Before looking at Athens as an ideal not attainable to the Romans, consider that slavery was a big part of both societies. Aristotle took it for granted that society was hierarchical. I don't say that to erase differences. There are many. But I am reluctant to invoke Golden Ages after Plato did such a good job of making fun of them. — Paine

I love talk of Athens because I have realized I don't really learn anything unless I am working with the ideas I want to know. Like being virtuous depends on taking action, so does learning anything.

I have no idea why Rome could not achieve everything Athens achieved. I think the Athenian legacy was stronger in Roman controlled Constantinople, but why? Why did Islam pick up the learning that spread from Athens and Christian Rome throw us into the dark age by destroying the places of learning?

Not only did Athens have slaves, but they were patriarchal and sexist! :rage: :lol: Anyone want to open that can of worms? I think I would have preferred to be a Spartan woman than a Athenian one.

Speaking of Sparta, Aristotle thought Spartan authoritarianism was superior to Athens whisy-whasy liberal ways. Socrates was discussed with Athens since it lost the war with Sparta, and then comes Plato's republic and then Aristotle. I don't think Aristotle would have thought highly of Pericles' funeral speech about how being generalist and comparatively lacking direction was a good thing. It would be super fine to have a symposium with Pericles and Aristotle as the main speakers. That is my idea of heaven. :lol:

I would not claim Athens had a golden age, but it distinctly gave the world a whole new way of thinking about reality and mans' place in it. Maybe some day I will know enough to develop the story of moments that changed human consciousness in a big way. Athens changed human consciousness and separated the west from the east. Do you want to argue that point?

↪Athena I'm not aware of any writings by Greek Stoics. I'm mostly familiar with Seneca, Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius as well as those stoic influences on early Christianity, medieval Jewish philosophy, Spinoza et al. Please recommend any primary sources of Greek Stoicism you've read (I'm familiar with some extant tertiary summaries).
a day ago — 180 Proof

I love Spinoza and would like to know about him.

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature. — Wikipedia

Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who lived in Rome. His thoughts are not so different from Aristotle's thinking and contemplating the golden mean.

I think a lot of that can be credited to the destruction of texts from the closing of the Hellenistic time where we can see many sources are referred to but are now lost.

One of the last to view the Platonic legacy in regard to Stoicism was Plotinus. He wrote polemics challenging Stoics in the Enneads but also included elements that recognized many previous arguments,

This essay by Gerson does a good job of contrasting Plotinus from the 'classical' thinkers: Plotinus On Happiness.

I take issue with his view of a Platonism 'beyond Socrates' but the stuff about Aristotle was helpful to me. — Paine

Your link demands some thinking. My first thought is Aristotle didn't deal with Christians who definitely use the Bible for comfort, and how they make themselves feel happy with a fantasy of knowing God and trusting God helps them in all things even though they may be racist bigots.

Neither did Aristotle deal with today's people programmed for PowerPoint presentations and very focused on crass worldly things, like a Roman, not like an Athenian. We might think of the career-focused young as Rome on steroids and far from the more metaphysical and abstractly inclined Athenian,

I can appreciate Aristotle's notion of happiness being the feeling of high morale that we have when we believe we are doing the right thing but this is a refined appreciation of the virtuous life, It is not the human norm. This subject of happiness is pretty tangled up with materialism. Aristotle defined real as something that exists. Piety is real but it is not matter. Piety is of the mind but does not require a lot of intellect. Or what the heck, we can just be practical and go for money and power and enjoy a lot of happiness.

What do you find helpful about Aristotle? I am listing to lectures about his ethics and may have something more intelligent to say in a few days. I am actually fascinated by virtues and how they can improve our lives. I think Stoicism has much to offer. That fascination goes with also being fascinated by how aging changes our thinking. There was a time in Athens when there wasn't much effort to educate those below 30 years of age. The older I get the more I have a sense of meaning and the ability to see the bigger picture.

I understand, but I think we can achieve the same goal through the use of truth, and I think the results will be better than the results of using mythology. We can continue to story tell but we don't need to rely so heavily on numinous or supernatural suggestions. We can simply extrapolate and stretch real science.
Star trek proposes a lot of future tech which is not impossible. The flip style mobile phone was so like the communicator posited in Star Trek. Fantasy characters like Ironman are not impossible. An omnigod is impossible. Getting two of every species onto an 'ark,' is impossible. — universeness

I sense a strong need to be a little too literal. Did we really believe George Washington cut down a cherry tree and when his father asked about the tree did he literally say "I can not tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." or is that a story told to make a point about the importance of being honest? George Washington being one of our national heroes; part of our American mythology, the same as some characters in ancient stories were used to make a point. I speak of a time when history was not technologically correct accounts of history, but a blending of history and good storytelling. I want to appeal to your right brain, not just your left brain.

Give me an example of a 'destroyed national hero,' and 'a destroyed cultural aspect that united us and made our liberty possible,' that would exemplify your point here. — universeness

Oh wow, you are fun to converse with and so thought-stimulating! George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and Abe Lincoln walking a mile to give someone a penny, are examples of the American mythology that was transmitted through public education. Stories of Ben Franklin and Danial Boon and others were part of that mythology. Because this mythology was transmitted by grade schools it united us. We stopped transmitting that mythology and we are now very divided.

That's a step way too far for me Athena. How would that be different to calling for a new temple containing statues to a modern manifestation of the fabled Hercules or biblical Samson in the guise of The Hulk? I also have no attraction towards rebuilding Solomon's temple. If I had the power and democratic permission of the majority of stakeholders, I would convert the dome of the rock mosque, Westminster abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, The Vatican, Buckingham palace and every other church, chapel, kingdom hall, Hindu/Buddhist temple, into 'people property.' Units that can be used by the hungry, the homeless etc. The theists, theosophists, royalists can still run them as they do now, but they would not own them, and the main function of such places, would have to demonstrably be, the physical support of those in desperate need. If a homeless person is on the streets, then the local theists/theosophists, would have to explain why they are not helping that person. — universeness

h boy, that is a challenging question! :cheer: :grin: One difference is Athena's temple still stands and was restored but the statues that should be in it are in Briton.

The Parthenon Sculptures | British Museumhttps://www.britishmuseum.org › british-museum-story
The Parthenon Sculptures are a collection of different types of marble architectural decoration from the temple of Athena (the Parthenon) on the Acropolis ...

It really matters that the restoration of Athena's temple can not be complete without the statues because that makes the history written with stones, like a book with pages torn out. That building was constructed to teach the world of democracy and every piece of it had meaning. To understand the meaning that is contained in this temple built to teach the world of democracy, it needs to be as it was.
I don't think that is equal to the stories of Hercules.

I want all the places to be protected for the whole of humanity. I think what the Taliban did when they destroyed statues of Buddhas was terrible. But I love everything old and I would love to restore old houses and preserve a memory of their time in history. These relics unite us with the whole of humanity and I don't mind if they are owned by responsible people as long as our shared ownership is respected. When no one has ownership and responsibility, things get destroyed as the Brits and others looted the ancient world.

I think as a matter of principle we need to respect property rights. This is another subject and if you want to debate it let us start a thread for that. That could be a fascinating discussion of virtues. I would not welcome anyone in my home who does not respect private property. I can say that without a doubt, because people have taken advantage of me and stole from me. We must absolutely, return to teaching virtues.

Yipes I am late to a very important date- sorry I got to run.

Athena I don't really have a formal education. I finished high school but it was basically a useless education in a 2nd world small town.

I have to make clear that I never had any interest in politics and my approach on this matter is not political but still people mostly responded to this post in a political perspective because the word 'democracy' is used and that triggers politics in our conditioning.

As far as book suggestions for you, I don't think I have ever read books on this specific matter but the approach of personal responsibility (change starts from within) comes from many sources, like Nietzsche (poor man still misunderstood), Socrates, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Dostoevski, Zen masters, and many others.

A recent discovery for me is Iain McGilchrist. His work is abundant but very much worthy. — TheMadMan

What are the years of your high school education and what is a 2nd world small town? The date of your education is important because of the changed purpose of education. Before or after 1960?

Do you know what put you on the path of your book choices? I am looking for understanding what put you on your chosen path that can it be used to interest others in that path? I am asking the same question of myself because we have agreements and what in our characters led to us having a similar point of view when we are kind of going against the flow? I certainly despair at our focus on politics rather than having a more Greek concept of the polis and human nature.

I love books about the brain and made a note to myself that I must have a book written by Lain McGilchis. I googled him and found this exciting explanation....

Attention is not just receptive, but actively creative of the world we inhabit. How we attend makes all the difference to the world we experience. And nowadays in the West we generally attend in a rather unusual way: governed by the narrowly focused, target-driven left hemisphere of the brain. — McGilchrist

Yes, that seems an important observation and I believe it is directly related to the change in the purpose of education. I think the change was a big mistake. It clearly is rapidly advancing technology but what of our humanness and our polis?

Bottom line for me when it comes to you Athena is that YOU DO GOOD!
You are reasoning and tracing a path from historical theism, to a democratic humanist imperative.
I am fine with the path you are tracing and the characters you invoke, because, you regularly confirm, that you are not suggesting the gods of the ancients were real. You describe them, as exactly what they were used for, imitation/virtual manifestation/simulation/emulation of observed aspects of humanity and human behaviour and human intrigue.
The only difference between us, in the path you trace, is that I think, that the 'benevolent' consequences of the use of god characterisations, is, in the final analysis, outweighed by the 'pernicious' consequences.
But any small divergence we have in the details of our interpretations of the effects and consequences of historical and current theism, pales into insignificance, when I know that what you DO to help other people, makes me so, so grateful that folks like you exist and have always existed in every generation. May it always be so! — universeness

I am very sensitive to the importance of culture. Joseph Campbell said mythology is essential to humans and when they do not have a shared mythology they make their own myths and use the people they know as the monsters and antagonists. That is pretty heavy and I think destructive. It is much better if we have a shared mythology instead of blaming the people in our lives for our problems. He also said mythology is about teaching the young how to be adult members of the group.

The US intentionally had its own mythology transmitted through education. When we began education for technology we destroyed our national heroes and the culture that united us and made our liberty possible. I think that is a big mistake.

If you understand me correctly, I am not opposed mythology being constructed and then manifested as a culture. I am glad you see the Greek gods as human inventions and based on human traits. Athena was radically changed at the end of the Persian wars when her temple was rebuilt to tell the world about democracy. I think we should do all our power to restore her temple with all the statues returned and put in their places. This is far more important to me than rebuilding the Jewish temple.

Each god and goddess is a concept. We can also know them as archetypes and learn a lot about ourselves by learning of these archetypes. Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D." books "Gods in Everyman" and
"Goddesses in Every Woman" are amazing because with her explanations of the gods and goddesses as archetypes we can learn more about ourselves and also the gods and goddess that led to our democracy.

I do not stand alone in valuing the gods and goddesses. Our forefathers had a mural created in the Capitol Building portraying Greek and Roman Gods and Athena is seen there as the Spirit of America and the goddess who defends liberty and justice. As the Spirit of America, she brandishes the sword of Justice and is the defender of those who stand for liberty and Justice. Athena is portrayed as our Statue of Liberty holding a torch and a book, symbolizing the Enlightenment. She also stood in courts as the Lady of Justice and she holds scales for the balance of justice.

Truths are so elusive and perspective has such an important part in our ability to see them. We can totally miss the obvious without the right perspective to see them. Understanding the gods and goddesses as concepts make them very useful. They are also behind our laws.

I ask you to consider reading the books and seeing if they change your perspective.

We all have to go to Hades from time to time to get a sense of meaning. People who do not go to Hades are totally frivolous and I think that is a waste of our lives. But, we should never go to Hades without the help of the gods and goddesses because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. That is to experience depression or even more serious forms of mental dis ease such as psychosis.

Thank you for being open-minded. There is so much to be done if we are going to save democracy. I really do not like what education for technology has done to our attitude and spirit. So much has been lost from our consciousness. This is the mechanical society we defended our democracy against. I hope you see how your values can be served with a different way of seeing the truth. Being totally opposed to the gods and goddesses is very Christian and very atheistic and lacking in a philosophical perspective.

Yes, I know, Zeno of Citium et al. However, I'd recommended Roman Stoics because their writings I've found best epitomize classical stoicism. — 180 Proof

I think what is important to know about Stoicism is its place in the Athenian attempt to define the good life and how it is achieved.

I think saying the Roman writers epitomize classical stoicism is like saying that Roman Christianity epitomizes the Christian movement. That might be true but the truth has been radically changed. But then I speak in ignorance. I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism?

..are saturated with the social and political contexts of the turbulent, early Roman Empire in which they were written. — 180 Proof

Stoicism originated in Athens as part of Athens's thinking about virtues and ethics.

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature. — Wikipedia

However, your comment is supported by this explanation of Brits appearing very stoic. It begins with the French Revolution.

“It was a moment that views coalesced around. The revolution had looked like a great triumph of humanist Republican politics, but quickly turned very nasty and very violent,” Dixon told me. “It reinforced this idea that passions were dangerous, mad and should be resisted.”

Within four years, the two nations were at war as France took on the remaining powerful European monarchies during the Revolutionary Wars. While the stiff-upper-lip concept in its most extreme form was still some way off, it was here that British sensibilities began to tighten. The radical social revolution that had overtaken France threatened the status quo, and this “madness” had to be matched with restraint. — Olivier Guiberteau

And the pupil shouldn't advise the teacher. — Bartricks

Aristotle argued with his teacher Plato and both have strongly influenced our consciousness. Who would want to stop our intellectual growth with Socrates, Plato's teacher, or Platto, or even stop with Aristotle? Aristotle was not 100% right and his notion that the universe circles the earth was wrong and without Nicolaus Copernicus, and then Bacon turning Aristotle's reasoning upside, we would not have the modern world we have today and this reality is much more capable of the meeting the needs of a huge world population than the authority of old.

The Athenians' difference is one of reasoning and questioning and even arguing with the teacher, the authority. Our mandate is to learn and question and argue, always searching for the best reasoning, rather than be submissive to authority that stops progress. That is the east and west divide.

I find great personal contentment in that. My life has purpose, meaning, value and a spectacular sensation of wonderment. I want to contribute to secular, humanist, socialist, democratic progress in everyway I can, as long as I live. — universeness

Totally :heart: we are part of something bigger than ourselves. We need to spread this as religions are spread. I think we can succeed if we bring back the consciousness of the Enlightenment and Athens. For sure Athens was not ideal in all ways but it opened the door to our greater human potential when it gave life to Apollo, the concept of reason.

BUT, In this sense, we are all part of each other. — universeness

So true. We are very much shaped by our time in history. I love to think of myself as a hippy. My mother sang for USO shows and was the ideal pinup girl. My grandmother devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom from the first world war and through the second one. I carry my mother and grandmother with me.

Oh, oh have you heard the saying that when we meet someone we come a little part of that person's life and that person becomes a little part of us?

Our lives are unique, we will disassemble and become 'spare parts' again. — universeness

LOL, I am a registered organ donor, but for that to work, one must die in the hospital and that is not something we can always arrange. Hit me with a truck and make my brain dead and get me to the hospital while my blood is still circulating so my organs can live on in other people. Or I consider my mitochondria that has given me life and dying someplace where the birds and other creatures might consume my mitochondria and give it life.

I think it is sad that we all do not have a sense of oneness with the universe. Those who fear the eternal publishment of a god are the most sad. What can separate us from the universe other than our own ego? If we are willing to surrender our ego then what is left but the universe?

However, I come with western individualism and a mandate to have a meaningful life and that comes with ego. I think that might be a good thing for while we are here. For me, it is a lot more fun than thinking my life does not matter.

I think reincarnation is a possibility and I would choose a different life experience than the one I have had because if there is an "I" it would be nice for it to have many experiences and expand its consciousness and hopefully make it more useful. But if I just quietly become one with the universe that is okay. There will be no "I" to be unhappy about that. Is that line of reasoning logical?

I don't need the fake hope of fictitious god's to help me in my life, I just need good people like yourself to exist. — universeness

You do know my effort in the forum would be completely useless without someone who understands what I am saying as you are understanding the thoughts. I could not think the thoughts your agreements bring to mind, if you were attacking me instead of understanding what I am saying.

Here is the miracle of democracy- it is what happens when our minds meet in agreement. The way of Apollo must begin with a willingness and ability to understand each other. When this happens there is enlightenment and those involved can see even more than they did in the beginning of the communication.

Christianity can be deadly to the necessary process as a belief that we know God's truths, blinds us from knowing truth. As soon as we think we know God, we know not God, but only our mental representation of God.

Bottom line, my thinking is only as good as yours.

↪Athena which gods and why are we modelling our lives on these gods? I know if other gods that work differently. Why do we even have to reason it, isn't there some hand-me-down history from these gods? — New2K2

Well yes, it is the history of democracy as it originated in Athens. The folks of Athens asked, how do the gods resolve their differences? As you know, their gods had plenty of differences, and yet they are immortal so they can not resolve their differences by killing each other. Their conflicts went on until reason ended the conflict.

One of the most important gods isApollo, the god of reason. I don't know if any other mythology has a god of reason. Apollo was born when Athens was in turmoil which pressured people to rethink everything and come up with some solutions. You probably know Socrates was opposed to some of the stories of the gods and he asked...

Is Zeus a good god? Everyone was sure he was. Then Socrates asks, is it good to commit adultry, and everyone knew of the trouble in Zeus's and Hera's marriage, and they had to answer, no, it is not good to commit adultery. See the dilemma? Can evil gods do good? Athenians did not believe evil people could do good. If good happened because of the actions of an evil person, that was just a fluke.
Socrates is known for speaking against democracy and yet he also died for it.

I think those who say Socrates spoke against democracy are missing the most important point of what he said. He said ignorance is a terrible thing and that makes a democracy of ignorant people a terrible thing. The gods did not have good morals and Socrates pleaded that Athenians to take up the problem of ignorance and stop feeding citizens stories of the gods that leads to bad behavior. Here is where Apollo is extremely important and there can not be a democracy without Apollo, the god of reason.

Socrates was opposed to spending time on such things as questioning what is the substance of life and is the universal element an atom. Socrates was concerned with our consciousness and moral judgment. Yet today we can easily see how the understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, also shapes our understanding of gods.

Athenians stand out as unique because they broke away from supernatural explanations of everything, and began looking for the physical cause of all things. This put humans on a totally different path from the rest of Asia. It is a secular path and it led to democracy. The Bible is no better for democracy than Homer's stories of the gods.

Democracy is not the rule of the people, it's the rule of the majority. No government can ever achieve true democracy and maintain it for two generations. — New2K2

Democracy is rule by reason. It begins with asking, how do the gods resolve their differences and concluding they argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. Only when we get our understanding of what is, and what we want right, can we get good results.

Democracy is not efficient. Autocracy is efficient. We are still working on getting our act together and we are still dealing with the mentality that supported kings as authority over the people. We are as autocratic as we are democratic and we seem to understand autocracy and the good reasoning for it, a whole lot better than we understand democracy.

What we achieve, depends on how we educated our children and why we educate them. Public education is like a genii in a bottle. The stated purpose is the wish and the students are the genii.

We live in very exciting times, perhaps it has been ever thus for every human generation. Such is the nature of relativity. — universeness

I know historically when we harnessed electricity and could lite our streets, people thought we were in the Age of Enlightenment.

Humanity has not always progressed as it has since the Age of Reason, that moment in time when our loyalty shifted from the authority to explain everything and dictate what and how things would be done, to relying on our own reasoning and giving the power to the people to decide what will be and how it will be. Before this moment in time, we were in the Dark Ages and yes they were really dark because the Church had destroyed liberty in a fight for its power. Scholasticism began making things right by reviving the thousands of years of progress that ancient civilizations had made before the Church took control.

However, from the time of the change in authority from a few with power and authority to everyone having a say in governing decisions, we did not have the vast knowledge we have now, nor the material means to make life totally different. We are in a moment in time that will change the human experience as much as our experience of life was changed when we climbed down from the trees.

We are in the Resurrection. Geologists, anthropologists, and related sciences are resurrecting our past and it is our duty to learn everything we can from them and to rethink everything we believe to be true. We have gone from Socrates' mandate to know ourselves as individuals, to knowing ourselves as a species. And so, as it is in heaven it will be one earth. But God didn't build Noah's ark and He is not going to clean up the earth and make it new. We are 100% responsible for what will be. Only by getting our act together can we have free will and heaven on earth.

Personally I was never able to believe in god/s, even as a child. I've never had a sensus divinitatis and the idea of theism was never coherent to me. I only got interested in the arguments used to prove or disprove god because the apologists thought reason could be aggressively mustered in their defence. — Tom Storm

I may still be in the church with a leader like John Shelby Spong. I struggled with superstitious fears when I was young and this became an extremely serious part of my life when I was in my early 30's. That is an age of transition and for some of us, it is a very difficult time. I had to make a choice, either I was possessed by the devil or all those boogieman stories of the devil and demons were false beliefs and in reality, I am 100% responsible for what I do. I am very glad I decided those superstitious ideas were false. However, at that time Satanism became very popular and some years later, my daughter had a friend who went to prison with another friend for their satanic killing of one of the girls. And I have seen other people suffering because of false beliefs. I am not so sure freedom of religion is 100% a good thing. Religion and ignorance can be a terrible mix.

That is not the only problem I see with religion. Our education and justice systems are very seriously hindered by religious notions and this is a serious problem for a democracy.

The Christian 'sects' cannot even decide if they believe in monotheism or not.
An angel or a demon or even an Islamic jinn are not humans, so what are they?
Is Satan a lesser god? are angels, demons, jinn's etc lesser gods compared to humans?
If so, then Christianity's monotheistic claims are open to question, are they not?
Perhaps they could claim there is a 'godhead'/leader/originator but, according to Christians, it seems to require not only deference to it but also to its other supernatural creations such as angels! — universeness

Well thank you. It seems to me denial is a large part of believing. I have heard and read that Satan played a much larger role in Christian beliefs than is so today. We stopped beating Satan out out of children. Christians did not see God as a loving God instead of a jealous, revengeful and punishing God until our bellies were full and most of enjoyed a relative high degree of security. I find the Christian belief totally confusing. How can anyone know if it is Satan making their lives miserable or God punishing them?

Why does Jesus keep referring to his Father in heaven, if he is that Father, and if he is not that Father, there is more than one god and that is a blasphemous idea because the defining characteristic of Christianity is monotheism. I believe Hebrews were okay with many gods. Why else would God be a jealous god if there were none to compete with Him.

And please, what is the logic of breaking away from Judaism, God's favorite people, who know God's word and claiming Christians somehow have the authority to change the rules? Hey that could make a good discussion? This subject could look like a dog chasing its own tail. Christians correct Judaism, Protestants correct Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. Many, many new comers come in with better protestant explanations of God's truth and are Mormons Christians or something else? Is a Catholic a Christian? Like I said, it can all be rather confusing.

That's ok, it's easily explained. The matrix is a series of sci-fi movies, starring Keanu Reeves. You could easily get a synopsis of the plot from a wee google search, if you have never watched them.
Yes! VR/AR is virtual reality/augmented reality. VR is a total simulation. AR uses the real world as the background and augments your experience by adding virtual characters and events.
If you have never experienced a good quality VR headset experience, I would highly recommend it.
It really can completely fool your senses, your brain can have real difficulty not reacting to what you are experiencing, as if it was really happening. VR/AR is still in it's infancy but it's possibilities are very powerful indeed. Perhaps in the future, we may achieve holodeck tech such as: — universeness

It would be wonderful if we could use this technology instead of drugs. How about replaying history and changing it and watching what happens when history is changed. I love the original Nintendo games and being able to redo the past section of the game and get better results.

Also I remember a movie where a grieving person was able to sit and talk with someone who past. That would be so wonderful. Maybe we could resolve many personal problems with such technology? Psychotherapy linguistics makes a person aware of how s/he remembers the past and then rethinking it because linguistics is about how we talk to ourselves and tell our life stories in a new way. We can change our story and change our lives. With better technology the process could be even more effective.

I bookmarked the other video and love that it spoke of Daniel Kahneman. His perspective can also be life-changing. His perspective gives new meaning to Socrates' "know thy self". This is an important part of understanding secular morality and the sense of responsibility that self-governing people must have.

If reason, rationality, exemplification and even demonstration, fails, after many attempts, and we are (I hope) barred, from forcing an individual to support all efforts to create a progressive, humanist, secular, global, society which is benevolent to all species and all universal objects that come into the sphere of influence of the human race. Then I think the best we can offer the dissenters(and the criminal or nefarious), is regular or perhaps even permanent (matrix style) existence in a VR/AR world where they can experience the 'rapture,' of their choice, until they die. — universeness

I am sorry but I do not have the information necessary to understand what you said. I do not know what matrix style is or VR/AR worlds. Do those letters stand for virtual reality and artificial reality? If those letters mean either, I do not have any thoughts of such needed for meaningful meaning. Those words are only words to me without meaning as some possible world realities.

Exactly. And many Christians are of this view. I grew up in the Baptist tradition and we were taught that Genesis was a myth used to explain our world to a pre-scientific age. No one would have dreamed of taking this or Noah's ark story literally. That's for fundamentalists - a particular expression of religion that seems to take comfort in literalism. — Tom Storm

But that is what the Reformation is about. The Reformation is putting an end to men tinkering with the Bible and creating a religion that deviates from God's truth.

This is also a matter of logic. Higher-order thinking skills prepare individuals for abstract thinking. In the past, well-educated people were taught higher-order thinking skills. Those without this education think literally. It is exactly as the Bible says it is and it is not up to individual interpretation. That was what was wrong with the authority of the Catholic church, individuals in authority wrongly interpreted the Bible, so lay people had to learn how to read the Bible for themselves, so no one could get away with misrepresenting God's truth.

One more thing- where does deciding what the Bible means, stop? Do Baptists believe in demons and angels and how much is Satan a part of the religion? How about slavery? Does the Bible justify slavery or make slavery taboo? What are the boundaries of deciding truth for oneself?

Just how literal one wants to get with the Bible will depend on how you read it. There is hyperbole, figurative language, and stories. The Bible says the world has 4 corners. It says geocentrism is true. It says this at least to those who interpret it that way. Religious stories are all over the ancient world and creations claims are prominent — Gregory

I think we can agree that creation stories are not intended to be anything like scientific truth. They are stories made up for psychological and social reasons. That is they are mythologies, even the Biblical story is mythology. At least 5 Biblical stories appear to be plagiarized from Sumerian stories. Abraham began in Ur a former Sumerian city with a Sumerian library.

This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing. — universeness

Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. T — universeness

What is the name of that book or where do I find that information? I have heard the New Age is a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tyranny. The people of the New Age will not be able to relate to our past because their experience of life will not give them the information they need to relate to a more primitive time. That is like us trying to relate to the first humans venturing out of Africa. I believe we are headed in that the New Age direction and have been on that path since the Enlightenment.

I am listing to a professor's explanation of the Enlightenment. :rofl: I pay attention to all explanations of the Enlightenment because it was such a pivotal time in history. Do you realize the philosophy of that time, the conviction of reason making life better, triggered the Awakening. The Awakening is the birth of Evangelical Christianity. It is theologians defense of religious doctrine and I mention this because I think that is one of the barriers to fully manifesting the New Age that needs to be corrected BUT!

We can not get rid of religious notions that prevent progress without raising awareness of what reason has to do with a high morality and democracy.

Martin Luther King, would not have the huge success he has today if his principles were not coming from our documents such as our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Martin Luther King is winning even in death because only a hypocrite would argue against his dream being universal justice and liberty for all. Perfect harmony with democratic principles. World wars increased the strength of the struggle for justice and liberty for all because we called on people of color to defend those values in war. We sent them into war to fight for what we denied them and Martin Luther King organized the movement to make justice and liberty for all a reality for all.

In the present, it may be people of color who save our democracy because they have to fight for a more perfect manifestation of that democracy and sadly they have to fight against some of our most patriotic citizens who are still prejudiced and in denial of the wrongs done.

:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.' — universeness

:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.' — universeness

I really think that is a matter of power, who has it and who does not. With power comes respect and the more important education is to getting things done, the more power and respect educated people have. I think our democracy and universal education has greatly increased individual power but we seem to be developing an attitude that destroys human dignity, appreciation, and respect. I am afraid our republic has been on the same path the German republic took. Our materialistic focus has damaged our values and our past goal of human dignity a priority. There was a time when we valued people for their character.

no. Whatever explanation the atheist gives, the Christian can give too if they wish. If there is no need to suppose that God created this place, then all options are open — Bartricks

In this case, who is authority about "God" and what makes the authority legitimate? Are there any verifiable reasons for believing the Biblical explanation of Creation? Like can DNA test support the idea that a god made us of mud as opposed to believing in evolution? Do the Sumerian stories of Creation and the Flood support the truth of creation and people being made of mud, even though in the Sumerian stories it is a Goddess not a God who makes people with mud, just as the people made images of their own patron gods and goddesses.

I am not a Christian. I do believe in God. But I don't believe God created the world we live in. It doesn't look like the kind of place an all-good person would create. But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

What other explanation can there be? I am not Christian and I do not have a problem with the notion of an universal god. For me it is futile to argue the existence of "God" but really? how believable is the Christian explanation of God and creation? It just is not right to be forced to believe an unbelievable story of "God" and denied any other understanding of "God", disrespecting and possibly killing those who have different beliefs.

Today there is even now a popular 'hype' philosophy like "optimistic nihilism". But to me personally, it's just the same basically with hedonism, which basically it all sounds the same, eg: "just live in the present moment, enjoy life, since we only live once!". But again, is this all there is to life? existence? It still feels pointless, in the end, in the grand scheme of things. — niki wonoto

Each god and goddess is an archetype of a purposeful life. When I was younger I followed Demeter the goddess of motherhood and growing things. When my children left home, I began following Athena, the goddess who taught men how to rule themselves. I am a small part of something much bigger than myself. Apollo is important for reasoning and creativity. Like how big does our purpose have to be to be valid and important?

His organizational backbone was religious. I explained this earlier. — frank

His organizational backbone was democracy coming out of the enlightenment and the belief that science and preparing everyone to be good citizens would improve our lives, which it has.

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” The US stands for liberty and justice. That is a higher morality but there is a problem with not preparing the young for good moral judgment because without education for that there can not be liberty as that leads to authoritarianism and looks more like what happened to Germany's republic when Hitler took control by appealing to people's anger and frustration.

In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy. — praxis

All cultures live by social agreements. I am glad I am not living in a conservative Muslim society where a woman can be killed because her head was not properly covered. I am glad I live in a country where someone who acts like Hitler can be put on trial and hopefully prevent what happened when Hitler was in a power in a more authoritarian country, perverting the teaching of Nietzsche and embracing the mentality of thugs who make killing people who are seen as defective, acceptable.

However, the steps taken in the US following 911 might give a person reason to be concerned. Who ever thought in the US people would be denied public transportation if they did not have the required Identification? Or that thugs could come so close to taking over the Capitol Building with a belief that this could become an overthrow of our established government.

I think some people here have no knowledge of the rest of the world and how lucky they are to be in a democratic society where human rights are protected and the quality of life is high compared to some more conservative countries where might makes right, not the rule of law.