I spent this morning in a mandatory meeting and we were told why the organization is having so many problems and why our superiors can do nothing about them.

A major problem is the organization I am in is dependent on other organizations and those other organizations have no interest in what our program is doing other than the list of rules. Those who make the rules for how we serve elderly people have education in public service but not gerontology (the study of aging). That is, the rules are being made and enforced by people who do not know the population we serve. This is a huge problem because being over 70 is nothing like being 35. We are working with dependent and vulnerable people and the people making the rules have no understanding of what it is like to be one of them.

The organization could be doing a lot better if it were a religious organization with a focus on giving compassionate care, instead of a hierarchy of power and legalities and rules. And leave the volunteers free to do what needs to be done. Being American used to mean being our own authority and being trusted to do the right thing but today's bureaucracy has changed all that.

if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society. — SpaceDweller

What else would qualify a person for a death sentence because keeping them alive is a waste of resources? How about paralyzed people or severely mentally challenged people?

According to Hana Arendt, Is evil something like the wind? Does it have a cause? Can it affect life on earth? Do our actions or thoughts attract it or push it away?

Banno
16.9k
↪Athena
Hana Arendt's essay on the banality of evil would be a good start. — Banno

I am a rather busy person. Can briefly say why Hana Arendt's essay is about?

Agent Smith
4.3k
And you appear to be ignoring information.
— Athena

:blush: Yep, you're on the mark. It's just it doesn't feel right to attribute anything to a particular group of people or to a country as a whole. When we do that, we do it for the sake of simplicity, but there's the real and deadly risk of oversimplification. — Agent Smith

I was hoping to change my post before anyone responded to it. I should not have made a "you" statement.

@SSU is the only person I have come across in many years of trying to have this discussion who knows enough about bureaucratic choices and organization to have something interesting to say. I think most people find the subject of bureaucracy just too boring to bother learning anything about it and that leaves them powerless. Understanding very little they are easily manipulated.

Long before Hitler gained real power, he became a speaker for the National Socialist party. The party
surveyed people to find out what made them the angriest and then they rented places for speakers who would talk about what made the people angry and how they would change things so they would be happy voters instead of angry voters. Trump took that route to the presidency. He even came to my small city and used the fairgrounds and told us over and over again what I great community we have. There was no substance to what he said, only people-pleasing comments. He did that all across the country. Of course, he is not the only one to do that but these speeches and TV ads were not always the work of professionals who find out what we want to hear and how to package their message so we will vote for them. People who really do not have a lot of information vote for someone who makes them feel good. You talk about "it doesn't feel right", and I think you agree you ignore the information. THIS IS NOT HOW TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY! THIS IS NOT WHAT EMPOWERS THE PEOPLE.

Reactionary politics is all about feelings. Since we ended education for independent thinking and left moral training to the church, we have developed the reactionary politics that as @SSU pointed out resulted in a complete collapse.

Stability and security is what all authoritarians proclaim. And usually, they portray every opponent of theirs as being against this and that those before them were evil and had no desire to serve the people, unlike them (the populism). The situation is so dire, that tough measures are needed. And many fall for that — ssu

But reactionary politics destroy everything because people are acting on their feelings, not their knowledge. They know they do not understand and do not have the power and they seek a leader who will take good care of them.

Education is vital to democracy and that is not education for technology.

Banno
16.9k
with us.
— Hillary

part of us
— Hillary

Shall we let it persist, shall we restrict it, even annihilate it?
— Hillary

evil has shown itself
— Hillary

Again, you are reifying what people do; that strikes me as a poor way of approaching the problem. — Banno

What is a better way to communicate the ideas?

What are using to form your opinion?

Agent Smith
4.3k
There's nothing American or German about governance/politics. All we have to remember is that when we make a choice, it's not the best of the best but the best of the worst (least worst). — Agent Smith

To make a choice people must be informed and they are not informed. People are totally clueless about the bureaucratic changes that have been made and what this has to do with our children having a very different education since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, ended the transmission of the culture we had. They are completely unaware that because of these changes we value each other differently and this is a huge change in how we experience ourselves.

Welcome to the Borg. Please verify who you are with official ID and tell us what is your IQ and what is your area of expertise.

ssu
5.8k
↪Athena Referring to the Prussian military model I really didn't think about Max Weber, actually. After all, there are different models and ideologies that are German / Prussian. Starting from the fact that Karl Marx was born Prussian! (But for some reason we don't look at Marxism as part of the cultural heritage Prussia has given to the World)

But yes, Weber is also one of my favorites and his views have been very influential. Indeed in his works on bureaucracy are important as it's been a framework on how bureaucracy has been studied. It's not only that Americans have adopted Weber, it's quite universal at least in the West. The faceless Weberian bureaucrat has been seen an antidote antidote patronage, nepotism and corruption. Of course as person living in the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries he didn't live to see what modern bureaucracies developed into (someone as smart as Weber could have made interesting observations) and for him modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world. We have to understand that a professional, impartial and meritocratic government bureaucracy have been the exception throughout history. In Weber's time there was in Germany still the Kaiser and when you do have an autocrat, bureaucracy can be passed by going directly to the monarch. Hence sociologists that lived in the late 19th Century had still much things around from the past like the last remnants of feudalism in their day to day life. — ssu

Oh I think I love you!

:kiss: Now this discussion can flower. This is the first time in many years on many forums that someone has said something that can move the discussion forward. :grin:

Yes, the government programs we have today would not be possible without this bureaucratic order. I don't see the number for post? On the first page about halfway down I give quotes from Huxley, Tocoquiville, and Tagore

Athena
2k — Athena

(click on Athena to see the thread) that draw our attention to the problems with this bureaucracy.

I believe everyone understands our change from the past as the consequence of technology, without considering bureaucratic technology. My argument is the change in bureautic technology is essential to programs such as Social Security, but it also has social, economic, and political ramifications. This would not be as true as it is, if we had maintained education for good citizenship and independent thinking and if we continued to transmit the culture we had.

With the change in bureaucratic order, came education for a high-tech society with unknown values. Now may I draw your attention to Eisenhower's farewell speech warning to not rely too much on the experts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY We replaced education for independent thinking with "group think" and the best way to become aware of this social change is to compare Star Trek, Kirk with Picard. Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the "Group Think" generation.
If you can get this and then think about Trump and Biden you can see the importance of social change.

However, The change is not all bad. Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy and that is to have your point of view of what is good, without realizing the problems. Sorry for being so wordy, but we have culture wars and we are ripping ourselves apart right now. An end to racism and greater equality for women are good things but they do not come without problems. Perhaps you can name a few?

In the 1970's we announced a national youth crisis and my son and daughter were caught up in it just as many in my generation were caught up in being hippies. This led to my grandchildren being made wards of the state and I learned more about tranny than I ever thought possible in the US. I hope we can get into this. I hope we begin screaming about Texas paying people to report anything related to abortion and what went wrong in Nazi Germany, where the witch hunts began, and what can we learn about this evil of reporting family and neighbors to "authority".

Well your information is different from mine and it is a nice sunny day and I don't think I care as much today as I do on other days. However, all that talk about war isn't what people who study bureaucracy talk about. This is how people who study bureaucracy understand the organization used in Germany and adopted by the US.

The Weberian Model
The classic model of bureaucracy is typically called the ideal Weberian model, and it was developed by Max Weber, an early German sociologist. Weber argued that the increasing complexity of life would simultaneously increase the demands of citizens for government services. Therefore, the ideal type of bureaucracy, the Weberian model, was one in which agencies are apolitical, hierarchically organized, and governed by formal procedures. Furthermore, specialized bureaucrats would be better able to solve problems through logical reasoning. Such efforts would eliminate entrenched patronage, stop problematic decision-making by those in charge, provide a system for managing and performing repetitive tasks that required little or no discretion, impose order and efficiency, create a clear understanding of the service provided, reduce arbitrariness, ensure accountability, and limit discretion.[8
[https://www.coursehero.com/study-guides/amgovernment/understanding-bureaucracies-and-their-types/

Weber was a sociologist and very influential. He was born in Prussia. I like many of his thoughts.

Now I am going to join a neighbor and work on my garden on this lovely sunny day. I hope you are also enjoying your day.

It is isolated.

In your statement you recognise evil as something distinct from good.

"I place evil... inside the universe, how is it dealt with?

You recognise that evil must be 'dealt' with...

Thus, isolation. — Varde

Good point and an exciting notion. I read in a very old book that the ancient Eyptians believed in the trinity of the soul. One part of the trinity died with the body. One part was judged and either got to enter the good afterlife or not, depending on the weight of the heart. No matter what, the third part reunited with the source. Christianity made the god spirit separate from who we are and made the trinity a supernatural father, son, and holy ghost, and created a separate being of evil to explain evil. This difference is a difference in how we judge each other and our relationships and how we understand good and evil.

I mean, focusing less on technology. Technology tends to de-humanize. — Hillary

Wow, nothing is simple. :grin: You make me think when humans transitioned from small nomadic tribes to cities they manifested a shared consciousness far beyond the limits of small tribes. As cities grew more and more ideas bounced off each other and greatly expanded our shared consciousness, and increasing our knowledge of nature, math, and science, and now the web unites the world and holds more information than ever before possible. Socrates and others saw information as essential to good moral judgment.

So now what can we make of the contradictions of good and evil? I mean this sincerely? How do we maintain our humanness and integrate our growing knowledge and technology with it? Like this technology should be our tool, not our master, but it seems to me it is coming up like the Borg, which consumes sentient beings and makes them part of the Borg. The Star Trek series frequently visited this idea of societies controlled by computers and I think, thanks to Prussian bureaucracy mixed with technology, we are a computer-controlled society but the components of the computer are programmed humans who are organized by policies, not just manufactured parts.

Hillary
1.7k
We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods
— Athena

We also could turn our back to technology.
14 minutes ago — Hillary

What does turning to technology mean to you? How would that improve our moral judgment?

Did you go to the local/national newspapers with the story? Did you contact any human rights-based pressure groups? Did you write letters of complaint and get copies sent to every local politician in the area. Did you look at any legal path due to the fact that your Jewish friend suffered racial discrimination?
Did you ask for help from protest groups who might consider organising a petition or organise a protest outside the place where this counselor works? How angry are you, the Jewish community and those around your Jewish friend at his/her treatment? You have had setbacks in your pursuit of justice for your friend, do these initial defeats/barriers mean you are done fighting already?

It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble
— Athena

The fight is hard, sometimes very very hard and the rewards can be few indeed BUT YOUR FIGHT IS JUST! I think your 99% is a bit high, when others see your tenacity it can fire many towards supporting you.........eventually. — universeness

Wow, thank you for being so supportive. I work and I have every little energy so I have not done all those things yet, but I am working on them. I devoted today to following the steps that the hospital told me to follow, before calling in the big guns.

In the past, I took my social concerns directly to the newspaper and almost always got my letters to the editor printed, but the locally own paper was sold and the staff is out of town and very different from the past! In the past, I have also taken concerns to the local and state levels of public hearings. I had a lot more fire and energy back then and I miss my working relationship with the newspaper.

After failing to make progress with the medical facility I have asked for help from a local synagogue and I am waiting for a reply. I forgot about the Human Rights Commission, and thanks to you, I bookmarked the Commission page and have called and left a message. I hate confrontation, but with the support, you have given me and my sister pointing out how damaging that experience was to his effort to get counseling, I am willing to do as much as my time and energy allow me to do.

I would take more of a cognitivist anti-realist position on morality: there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena. I don't think the universe instantiates any "good" or "evil".
— Bob Ross — Hillary

Wow, if that were the case there would be no life that depends on good parenting. That would eliminate all mammals. The book "Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer speaks of the pre-moral state of animals. All creatures, including humans, are born with instincts and evolution has favored the development of instincts that promote the survival of the species. Human evolution has brought us to the consciousness level of the scientific method, and with philosophy, provides the grounds for good moral judgment.

However, a society that focuses on technology and neglects education in virtues and good moral judgment full fills the fear of Zeus. We have mastered technology and turned our backs on the gods. We are technologically smart but not wise.

Angelo Cannata
144
Certain things we talk about in philosophy are not so much concepts: they are much more experiences. Conceptualizing experiences can be useful, but it is not the best way to deal with everything. Many mistakes and misunderstandings in philosophy come for mixing these two perspectives. Saying that some evil is necessary for good to exist is a total conceptualization of evil and, as such, it looses sight of a lot of human aspects of it, especially personal involvement. On the opposite, complaining, crying, without any further action, happens when the intensity of experience overwhelms our ability to think. The solution is not in finding a balance between experience and concepts: such a balance cannot exist and, actually, there is progress, movement, becoming, exactly because of imbalance: a too perfect balance turns into absence of life, of progress. I think the solution needs to be dialectic, which means, a permanent action of work, movement, progress, self-criticism, among the different elements and imbalances.
So, facing the OP question “What to do...”, what is important is looking not for a conclusive answer, but exactly for something to do, which is, a kind of doing that must be never expected to stop, like instead conclusive answers are.
In other words, a conclusive answer to evil not only does not exist, but we need to be vigilant to avoid any temptation to find or to built it; a conclusive answer must not exist and we need to work actively to make impossible for it to exist. Conclusive answers to evil are worse than evil itself, because evil can change, but conclusive answers are aimed at not changing: they block progress.
So, from a philsophical point of view, facing the question “What to do with evil”, I think a good answer is working on philosophy to make it dynamic, permanently self-critical and in dialogue with experience and subjectivity, avoiding conclusive answers, conceptualizations that can make us disconnected, forgetful of personal human experience. — Angelo Cannata

Your post is exactly what I need at this moment.

Some of us remember a different experience of our democracy in the US. We remember believing a good citizen took action when something was wrong, and that is no longer possible in most cases because we no longer have the communication and organization, NOR THE EXPECTATION OF CITIZENS, that we once had. Government blocks us from taking action far more than it did in the past, and there are too many of us for communication to be as effective as it once was. And I really don't believe education is teaching our young to be responsible citizens, but instead, everyone is prepared to follow orders and rely on the experts, just as Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech.

Today taking action can mean being a martyr because we have to push against huge organizations that are about making money and policy, not listening to and interacting with people. They may be doing plenty of surveys but those surveys serve their purpose not the people dependent on them. It is all very efficient and also very dehumanizing.

I pushed a friend to get mental health counseling and evidently, his Jewish name became a problem. He fled after the counselor when she asked "How long have you had this delusion of grandeur?" His problem is totally the opposite of that, and she made a "you statement" that none of should be making. Then she followed him and publically humiliated him. Someone who overheard her said she was an "ignorant bitch" and she said "Better that than a stinking Jew."

We asked for a grievance form and after filling it out we were told that is the wrong form for mental health department complaints. Then we were given a phone number and that is a dead end because the caller is told the mailbox is full. Then a got a second number and it turned out to be the same dead-end. On this path to resolve the problem, everyone we spoke with is following policy and has a "just following orders" Naxi attitude. That is, no one feels the least bit of responsibility for resolving this violation of a Jew. What happened is an evil, and no one cares, leaving us to feel powerless against evil and like unwanted intruders in their nice day. They are just doing their jobs and we should not be bringing a problem to them.

Daily my sister deals with the homeless and bureaucrats who are not doing the job they are paid to do. She used to be a bureaucrat and those who need her help have no idea how to deal with the bureaucracies they must depend on, which includes how hospitals are run as well as government. It is irritating people like us, who get things done, but boy, does it take a toll on us and I would say 99% of the citizens think we should be following policy and stop making trouble. This is not how things used to be. We remember "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". We remember being told it is our freedoms and good citizens that make America great, not the impersonalness and "efficiency" we are experiencing today.

the following is the result of googling the popularity of Neitzche in the US.

Despite that, for more than a century Nietzsche has been a hugely popular—and surprisingly influential—figure in American thought and culture. In American Nietzsche, Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen delves deeply into Nietzsche's philosophy, and America's reception of it, to tell the story of his curious appeal.

American Nietzsche: A History of an Icon and His Ideas ... — Amazon

When Hintz professed her reverence for Nietzsche in 1913, the American “Nietzsche vogue” (as it was referred to at the time) was only in its infancy. Indeed, what looked like a fleeting intellectual fashion in the 1910s proved so durable that by 1987 it had accomplished, in the words of University of Chicago classics scholar Allan Bloom, nothing less than the “Nietzscheanization” of the American mind. In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom surveyed the wreckage of late-20th-century “value relativism” in American culture and traced it back to the 1930s and ’40s, when German-speaking intellectual émigrés fleeing Nazism brought Nietzsche’s philosophy with them as they found refuge in the American academy. According to Bloom, though they introduced Americans to Nietzsche’s terrifying insights into the bankruptcy of Western thought and morality, these refugee scholars also instructed them in the larger European cultural framework from which they had come. But as his philosophy made its way from the academy into the radicalized culture of the 1960s, it became transfigured into a blank check for late-20th-century “nihilism, American style.” — JENNIFER RATNER-ROSENHAGEN

You guys can find your argument in history as stated in the OP. Germany had reactionary politics and that is now true of the US.

The Conservative Revolution (German: Konservative Revolution), also known as the German neoconservative movement[1][2] or new nationalism,[3][2] was a German national-conservative movement prominent during the Weimar Republic, in the years between World War I and Nazi Germany (1918–1933). — Wikipedia

Why the denial of this instead of questioning the effect of adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education?

Plunged into what historian Fritz Stern has named a deep "cultural despair", uprooted as they felt within the rationalism and scientism of the modern world, theorists of the Conservative Revolution drew inspiration from various elements of the 19th century, including Friedrich Nietzsche's contempt for Christian ethics, democracy and egalitarianism; the anti-modern and anti-rationalist German Romanticism; the vision of an organic and organized society cultivated by the Völkisch movement; a Prussian tradition of militaristic and authoritarian nationalism; and their own experience on the front line during World War I, escorted by both irrational violence and comradeship spirit. — Wikipedia

That's indeed the red pill of the deepest red! Great thread. And we let our children still go to school? To turn them from colorful, playful little humans into brainwashed and programmed grey objectively thinking copies of the schemes the powers have in mind? Dear mother of gods... — Hillary

Well, now that is something I want to discuss. Public education is like a genie in a lamp, The defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genie. We changed that wish in 1958 and now have cultural determinism and chaos! This does not feel like the past where we had individual liberty and power and the services and businesses asked "how can I help you", instead of "how should I direct your call". Some of us older folks are experiencing culture shock and if we are renting it is very clear we are no longer the authority in our own home, but we live under the authority of property managers who ignore the repairs that need to be made but evict people who don't follow the rules. The number of people who have lost their careers because they said the wrong thing, horrifies me. They may have been very offensive but what happened to freedom of speech? Many years ago my grandmother walked away from her teaching job because the principal interfered with the discipline of her classroom, and today teachers assume they work under authority. I feel like I am stumbling to explain why I think something has gone very wrong.

In the 70s we announced a national youth crisis and blamed the parents. While the teachers are sure the parents just don't care and the parents are blaming the teachers for what is going wrong. We are not looking at the federal government and the changed organization and changed the purpose of education, and why some think Trump is our Hitler while others are very willing to lick his boots.

How different is present America from the segrationist America would be more interesting.

Totalitarian states actually give the perfect reason for people to adapt to it: it's simply survival. Yes, you can be a hero and fight the system, but you can easily pay the ultimate price, or your loved ones, without anyone even knowing about it.

Nazi Germany and post-war Germany are so different as the Third Reich collapsed so totally. In it's death throws it was genuinely destroying itself and the defeat was so bad that you really had a collective understanding that it didn't work and that it was utterly bad. This created the rare example of a country truly looking at it's past and condemning it. And that of course makes it so easy to hate.

In other countries, especially in Spain and Portugal, the fascist past is more problematic. It wasn't defeated in war. Spain just eased off the era of Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar's Portugal the Estado Novo, basically ended with the Carnation Revolution.

Quite different are the totalitarian systems which still have their supporters around who are respected "contrarians" and ideological minorities. — ssu

Excellent, full of things to think about.

The racist thing is a distraction from the wanting a totalitarian system and I am so glad you brought in the rest of the world. Through the internet, I know a Portuguese man and the brutality of fascism is still with him. Why not go with what works? Except as you said. in Germany, it was clear it did not work. But exactly what piece of it did not work? Oh man, this communication seems impossible because nothing is simple! It is mind-boggling that people could want Putin in charge, but in the US many people want Trump in charge and I can't explain this. But somewhere in this soup of thoughts is a burning need to be superior and in control, and to have no qualms about exploiti8ng or crashing others.

Why is being a Nazi attractive to some? Is that different from wanting to be in the Ku Klus Klan? Those questions beg psychological answers, but also organizational and sociologic answers. Many people thought fascism was the answer to preventing economy collapses, and many see socialism as more just, and do we want to get into our human nature and what drives us to choose one movement over another?

What made our democracy worth fighting for? I am saying we are no longer the democracy we defended. I will also say the New Deal is fascist but is that organization beneficial?

Not too different. The National Socialists, Italian Fascists, and New Deal liberals developed surprisingly similar systems to inspire and control their citizens. A good book on this subject is Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. — NOS4A2

Of course, they did because they could not have the government programs without the bureaucratic organization. Germany had a better standard of living than Britain when we enter the first world war because Germany had social programs and the rest of us did not.

Knowing your population is essential to modern warfare, and what could be better than giving everyone a social security number? Numbers help keep track of things. But that is not what we thought of when we got a job and signed up for social security. Clearly, babies do not have social accounts but we are now numbering them when they are born.

I have not read your book but have a copy of "Big Government" praising the development of big government which was a republican and democrat joint effort, and I have books warning of the dangers of giving government these new powers, and also the danger of government contracts that do not end when the war ends.

I do need to point out that the correct names are Hegel and Nietzsche... Those philosophers were never very popular in the US actually. Nietzsche bore a deep mistrust of nationalist Germans. Your vew is overly cultural deterministic. Every nation is prone to fascism. Italy was a fascist country despite its Roman heritage. The US was an inch away from electing a president with fascist sympathies before the war. There is no such thing as evil Europe and benign US. the question whether fascism takes root has to do with trust in institutions, resentment of the population towards foreigners , fear of the the loss of status and longing for times gone by during which everything was supposedly better... Whether one reads Hegel or Mill does not matter as both are not widely read anyways. Fascism creeps in through the mass media, through appeal to emotion rather then reason in times of economic crisis.

It is of course always good to remain watchful. Everywhere surveillance is being strengthened and that is a worrying development. So indeed be watchful of intrusions of privacy and of the massing of state power. No state is immune, I think that is a wise lesson. However, I do not share your cultural explanation. — Tobias

I love your term "cultural deterministic". That is perfect for what I have been trying to say for years but could not think of the right words. Of course, you do not agree with what I said because you do not have the same source of information, so I hope you don't mind me sharing my sources of information.

In the past, we all were more or less flying by the seats of our pants. We adopted the German (Prussian) model of government for a few reasons. 1. Merit hiring is supposed to correct the problems with Nepotism, hiring family or people who you know, for reasons other than their ability to do the job. But what the heck, we all were doing the best we could without technological education, which brings me to the next reason. Because each person did the job the best s/he could, when s/he died or retired, it would throw everything into chaos. The next person to do the job would not have the same talents and interests and would do the job totally differently. Everyone else in the office would have to adjust to the new person. We can see this when we change presidents. The following present completely wipes out what the previous president had done, and all the people around him are changed to fit his personality and desires. Trump was really frustrated because of the limits to his power, and few of us have the power we give presidents.

The Prussian military model means that even if all your generals are destroyed, the war will proceed as planned. Every detail of the operation is planned. Every job is planned in detail so everyone who does the job will do it the same as the person before. Kings die, but bureaucracies never die.

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization was generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely. — Aldous Huxley

As Tocqueville said in his 1830 book about "Democracy in America".

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. — Tocqueville

Tranny and Despotism have always been with us. It was just waiting for the Prussian model of bureaucracy to fully manifest. That would not be all bad because there are good reasons for the change, but when we also replaced our past liberal education with the Prussian model, we also "molded him". That is, we are not preparing our young for citizenship in the democracy we had, but in 1958 we began molding our young for the same New World Order, we defeated in war. The 1958 National Defense Education Act had a 4-year limit but became permanent. Our young are no longer prepared for leadership but to be followers. We replaced education for independent thinking with "group think", and don't you think you should die your hair green and put a ring in your nose so everyone knows you are one of them and hip.

At the 1917 National Education Association Conference, Sara H, Fahey quoted, Tagore, to explain our enemy and why we have to defend our democracy in a war. He said, "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

I appreciate that this brings up the idea that Nazi Germany used segregationist and eugenicist United States as the model for its anti-Semitic ideal of an Aryan Germany.

I do think that there is a detrimental puritanical ideal of human society and behavior that permeates American society. I couldn't say if Germany suffers the same "super-ego" oppressive tendency.

However, I am reminded of an interesting element of American society provided by some writer I can't remember that observed the behavior of temperance rallies back in the early 20th century in my homeland of Appalachia. People would spend days railing against the evils of demon liquor and then afterwards would pick up moonshine from the local stil'.

So, the Puritanical streak in America was always something that made transgression more enjoyable.

I do think that the implicit fascist urge goes back to puritanism or the idea of purity. That there is some preordained pure position attainable by human beings. However, I also think that Americans at least - if not Germans - also tend to rebel against that. Which is why the shadow of fascism always hovers over America but never descends. — ASmallTalentForWar

I love your post. To get directly to the point, besides the Christian problem of Christians competing against other to produce the most saints and killing each other, what made Germany so powerful was the Prussian love of military might and its excellent bureaucratic organization. The Prussians applied their military bureaucracy to the whole of Germany when they took control. This is the most important piece of what I have to say.

You mentioned the Puritans but the Quakers were even more influential in creating the US democracy, and German Methodists thought they had the method for making humans better and they were not shy about forcing their method on others. Like the Evangelicals and Shia Muslims, these folks can be a problem to our democratic values, however, it is the Prussians we should study to understand why the Germans had superior military technology and were well equipped for war, and later became the nightmare of Fascism and the holocaust. It is a mix of things and what the media is not getting is what Prussian education and bureaucracy have to do with being what we defended out democracy against.

By the third century B.C., the Celts controlled much of the European continent north of the Alps mountain range, including present-day Ireland and Great Britain.Nov 30, 2017

Who Were Celts - HISTORY — History Channel

Celts and Greeks got a long, but not so much Celts and Romans. Independence and liberty go with Celts not Romans. Rome came with Christianity that means conformity and living under a heirarchy of authoirty. It is all the historical stew we are talking about. I won't argue with what you said about people fighting for liberty.

Shit I am late, bye.

This is overstating the case. At least it seems that way from where I sit. Sure, there were at the time. and there still are Americans who sympathize with the idea of 'white racial superiority'. However, racist white Americans were/are prone to be anti anything non-white, whereas the Nazis targeted Jewish people.

The history behind how this all came to be is complex, for sure, but rest assured that there is always one deep seated mechanism at work:The systematic dehumanization of the 'enemy', whomever it may be. It's much easier to live with oneself when treating others cruelly or killing them outright, if those being treated as such have been previously devalued to the point of worthlessness in the mind(s) of the one(those) causing injury. That's the key core element common between Nazi Germany, the everyday affects/effects of the systemic racism inherent to The United States, and serial killers. We've not emulated Nazi Germany to the extent you suggest.

Babies and bathwater...

Americans were in awe of Germany's modes of manufacture and production, as well they ought have been. The Germans knew/know their shit when it came to such things. Given our post war economic boom was centered around manufacturing, it made good sense to emulate Germany in that regard, for they've always been very good at it. There were Nazi scientists brought on board in order to acquire their knowledge/expertise on rockets and nuclear dynamics as well.

All this being said, circling back to the OP...

American news outlets, today, are driven by profit. Profits come from advertising revenue. Advertisers want to reach as many potential customers as possible. Therefore, advertisers will pay the highest amount of revenue to the channels whose timeslots have the largest viewing population.

Shock sells.

In the seventies, the rock group KISS put on a constant theatrical production meant to shock conservative American values, particularly religious values and mores. The attention paid to them, much of which was by those avowed to somehow rid the country of their influence, made them global rockstars. The attention...

Shock sells.

Trump just said out loud what many Americans had been saying in private for a very long time. Sadly. Sadder still, is how utterly inept the opponents of such norms have been. Then there is the deep seated issue of who decides the narrative put into the public domain.

Point is that it's not so simple as to say that The United States is in trouble because we copied Germany. — creativesoul

I agree that racism was always a problem in the US and I will go further to say especially in the South it was taught in public education. The North tried to end slavery through education but the South caught on and began publishing its own textbooks that supported slavery. However, In the West prejudice against Asians was more of a problem and Oregon had sundown laws that meant killing a person of color if s/he did not leave town by sundown. Christianity the sole provider of morality does not make democratic values clear, however, secular education did make democratic values clear, especially at times of war. Teach those values to Black folk and they start acting like they have universal human rights too. You will not find that in Germany before the end of WWII.

Personally, I think the reality of prejudice and racism is fascinating. How much of it is natural and how much of it is cultural? India has a very mixed population. Some native Americans were friendlier than other tribes. However, I don't want to stray too far from Hegal and Neitzche in this thread. Especially Hegel can lead to religious zealots and Nitsche can lead to supremacists. And obviously, if schools are not daily teaching virtues, the qualities of good citizenship, and democratic values, they are not learned. Making the problem of our slave history, and prejudice, forbidden school subjects will for sure promote the problems, and here is where Germany has far surpassed the US. Germany teaches their immoral actions against others in schools and publically makes everyone aware of the wrongs with signs and monuments. Shame on US for making change impossible. Like it is okay to make a person of color feel terrible but we must not say something that makes Whites feel uncomfortable? Perhaps a philosophy forum can deal with this better than our nation has?

What America Taught the Nazis in the 1930s - The Atlantichttps://www.theatlantic.com › archive › 2017/11 › what...
Nov 15, 2017 — In the 1930s, the Germans were fascinated by the global leader in codified racism—the United States. — Ira Katznelson

Many people, even those with no more than a passing interest in sport, have heard of Jesse Owens, the American athlete who ruined Adolf Hitler’s moment in the sun. For there can be no question that Hitler saw the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin as the ideal platform from which to amplify Nazi propaganda and demonstrate his white supremacist ideology. But Owens, the grandchild of a slave, shattered that illusion. — The Guardian

Do you see mention of "White Supremacist"? That was taught in Germany and today it is being taught in the US. Democratic values are not being taught. Some places have made it against the law to speak the truth and this is very much an education problem in some states and a freedom of speech issue. At least we should be teaching democratic values, but in some places, it is believed we have democracy because of Christianity and no one knows what Greek and Roman classics have to do with understanding democracy. Here is an interesting chart when considering how Germany influenced the US, beyond replacing Greek philosophers with German ones.

• Chart: 15% of Americans Have German Ancestry | Statistahttps://www.statista.com › Topics › United States

I am so glad you are aware of "Americans were in awe of Germany's modes of manufacture and production". That became evident when we entered WWI. One of the speakers at the 1917 National Education Association praises Germany's technological and military accomplishments and explains why our education needs to emulate Germany's. I have said this is when our public schools added vocational training. We stopped short of the technological change made in 1958 because until the technology of WWII, we thought patriotism was the strongest part of our defense and teachers were defending our democracy in the classroom, making sure everyone knew why our democracy must be defended. There are serious social, economic, and political ramifications of the 1958 change that more completely adopted the German model.

"The history behind how this all came to be is complex, for sure, but rest assured that there is always one deep seated mechanism at work: The systematic dehumanization of the 'enemy', whomever it may be. " I have to run but first I have to point out the Republican party is strongly backed the Evangelical Christians and they have made "liberals" the enemy. Liberals don't know morals you know and are evil and will destroy America if they are not overwhelmed by Conservatives. Many strongly argue the US is not a democracy but a Republic, while Christians take credit for our democracy. :joke: It is a little whacko. A uniting truth is what the 1958 National Defense Act did to bring on all these problems. But on we can mobilize for war in 4 hours and do more damage in a day than many troops could have done in weeks when we entered WWII.

:snicker: So, you, Athena, a goddess, no less, didn't help? No wonder the Romans, plagiarists, switched from Olympus to Jersualem! — Agent Smith

I knew nothing of Athena or the gods when my life went very badly and I slipped deep into Hades. Learning of the Greeks and gods came later and was my path to a better life.

I very much enjoy Bolen's books and explanations of the gods and goddesses as archetypes. I had a Demeter archetype when things went badly, and she became seriously upset when Hades took her daughter to his underground kingdom. Zeus had to help her because nothing was growing and plants and animals were dying.

The switch to Jerusalem was very much what Greek philosophy did to Judaism.

As humans we usually illustrate reality and somehow define and know how to function within that illustration of reality.

You can see it on religion, social movements, philosophies...

When used properly it helps like it helped you out of depression.

But there are lots of kinds of people... I would say I am the kind of human that doesn't easily illustrates reality or gets someone's else illustration.

Not chosen but my only way "out" of depression was and is acceptance.

I just have it and probably will not get literally out of it, but it's not completely bad. If it wasn't for it, I would have not be able to deal with things I dealt with.

I mostly see ironies in this respect.
To be grateful with depression. What an irony. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

One of my best friends seems to have spent his life in depression. He makes me laugh a lot and when I laugh he smiles. For a moment he sticks his head out of the cave and sees all the beautiful colors. He has traveled the world and knows a lot so I really like to visit with him and learn what knows, but I don't think I would want to live with him and deal with his depression daily.

On the other hand, I totally got my own moments of depression during the lockdown were helpful. It is easier to stay home and attempt to amuse myself when I don't want to go do things. How about moderation? I would not want to be carefree during a pandemic and to become part of the problem, being exposed, being infected, and spreading it to others. Perhaps becoming a burden on the medical system. Or how about being euphoric and spending too much money?! :gasp: Been there done that. Coffee can unbalance my judgment. :lol: I believe the Greeks expressed the importance of being balanced.

I think you are saying something important when you speak of not getting someone else's point of view. Being sensitive to other points of view might be very important to getting out of oneself and seeing the bigger picture?

"He who has tried the serious, is no longer interested in the joke." — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Man, to not get the joke is a serious problem! When we can no longer laugh at ourselves, we are in deep trouble, and for this reason, I wonder why we hold some philosophers on pedestals. They were seriously troubled men and can take us further into Hades instead of out of it. Comedians are often people who had terrible lives and they learned to use humor to cope with that. Some of them learned to teach us by using humor to make a point. The Greeks had both tragedies and comedies and I think this advanced their intelligence.

Greek philosophy is my chosen way out of depression. I do not know how long I was seriously depressed but when it finally ended, like a headache ending, I felt like someone who stepped out of the cave and saw sunshine and a colorful world for the first time. I had really forgotten how it felt to be happy. It was an amazing experience to see the sunshine and all the colors.

We all must go to Hades from time to time to get a sense of meaning but we should never go there without the gods (concepts for living a good life). Without the help of the gods, we get lost in Hades. That is to be depressed or worse, psychotic. At my lowest point, I thought I was possessed by Satan and that he wanted me to kill people. I was really fighting for my sanity and at that point, I had a choice to believe what religion tells us about Satan and demons, or deny that belief and search for truth. I am so glad I discovered the Greeks at this time and began my path of being my own hero.

I had some depression during the shutdown that I think was as useful as you say it is. but I never went far into Hades because I now have the gods to help me find my way back out.

I do think so. If you consider morality as objective, you can discern man-made morality as a mere illusion, a fiction, a fantasy, a false morality even. A morality which can be surpassed, not obeyed to. Every man-made moral is a moral to which you don't need to feel submitted to. An objective moral is one to which we all should conform. Which is not to say that the moral should be obeyed to. And of course, one's objective morality can be different from the other's. An objective morality gives a feeling of certainty. — Hillary

To not feel subject to our morals is to be a bad citizen. We do not make morals, but through effort we become aware of them as universal laws, and just as our understanding of science can change, so can our understanding of morals change.

A moral is knowledge of universal law and good manners.

From a naïve utilitarianism perspective, if pain is objective, morality is/has to be too, oui? :chin: — Agent Smith

.

I don't think masochism is a popular choice. I think humans are more prone to want happiness, but many get lost in Hades and without the help of the gods (necessary concepts), they may not find their way out.

It seems that you have quite a moderate idea of "objective", since a few checks are enough for you to think that something is objective. This makes the discussion very ambiguous and confused. In philosophy "objective" means absolutely, totally independent from our judgment. That's the reason why I think objectivity is just a human fantasy, since you cannot refer to anything without making it automatically related to your judgement. — Angelo Cannata

But like any science, it is not just the individual's judgment. It is a judgment civilized people share.
@ Marvin Katz's explanation is essential to democracy, which is a systematic system of raising the human potential by arguing like the gods until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

Coming from Greek philosophy democracy is an ongoing search for truth and the object of this search is happiness, not just for oneself but for the entire social/political system. That philosophy was hijacked by Christians who then proceeded to create heaven on earth. Unfortunately, the Holy Bible does not explain universal law and the human effort as well as philosophy does, and religion becomes tribalism that stands in the way of knowing truth and manifesting happiness.

I was referring to DNA relics, if such exist, the kind that could be reactivated in order to express long-dead
phenotypes. What did humans look like 2.3 million years ago? It probably wouldn't be ethical. Can't believe I'm saying this. :fear: — Agent Smith

I see nothing morally wrong with what you are saying but scientifically there is more information.

Traces of Neanderthal DNA in some Eurasian people prove we didn't just replace them after they went extinct. We met, and we mated.

Elsewhere, DNA tells of other encounters with archaic humans. East Asian, Polynesian and Australian groups have DNA from Denisovans. DNA from another species, possibly Homo erectus, occurs in many Asian people. African genomes show traces of DNA from yet another archaic species. The fact that we interbred with these other species proves that they disappeared only after encountering us. — NICK LONGRICH,

First portrait of mysterious Denisovans drawn from DNA
Scientists analysed chemical changes to the ancient humans’ DNA to reveal broad, Neanderthal-like facial features. — Ewen Callaway

I suppose we could have fun arguing if Neanderthal and Denisovans and other extinct species along the human line had souls. By the way, genetic testing shows my family is connected with Neanderthals. Perhaps no one had souls until modern man caused the extinction of those who came before our species?

-Well to answer that you will need to define what you mean by that term.
Now the author ↪chiknsld
-"Does our soul come from an eternal source of power such as "Wille zum Leben"? Is there a connection between Aristotle's idea of the "soul" and Schopenhauer's "will to live"?
What do you think Darwin would have to say about people living in the 21st century and still believing in a "soul"? Is it possible that Aristotle was right, and that Darwin was wrong?"
Now I will ignore the pseudo philosophical nature of the options he provides and focus on error he makes.
Obviously he has never read the theory of evolution so he doesn't know that evolution doesn't address theories of Abiogenesis . — Nickolasgaspar

Our soul or our ego? Here I am thinking of the ancient Egyptian trinity. Instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Trinity could be us. One part of this trinity dies with our body. One part of our trinity is judged and may or may not enter the good afterlife, and the final part of our trinity always unites with the eternal source/ the one and only true reality.

What might be wrong may not be not Darwin or Schopenhauer but our belief that we are our ego, All living things will to live. I am not sure there is a human soul and that animals do not have souls? I am sure whatever lives, has a will to live.

As for our belief that we have souls, am okay with that as long as we know we do not know. The belief is a possibility but not a certainty. The knowledge that I will die is easier for me to live with the possibility that my death is not the final end. For me, this is an ego problem. I don't think I want to spend eternity with my family and only my limited experience of who I am. I think I might like to be a male who is tall and strong and has a deep voice, in another incarnation. I feel sure people would react to me very differently if I were such a male and I think I might enjoy that. :lol: I have to laugh because we are so fixated on defending who we are, our space, and our time and energy, but right now many are not sure if their true self is a male or female. I am not sure what reality is but I enjoy discussing it.

But the ancients did have notions of evolution.

Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610—546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal (probably a fish), because man needs prolonged nursing to live.[5][6][4] In the late nineteenth century, Anaximander was hailed as the "first Darwinist", but this characterization is no longer commonly agreed.[7] Anaximander's hypothesis could be considered "evolution" in a sense, although not a Darwinian one.[7]

Empedocles (c. 490—430 BC), argued that what we call birth and death in animals are just the mingling and separations of elements which cause the countless "tribes of mortal things."[8] Specifically, the first animals and plants were like disjointed parts of the ones we see today, some of which survived by joining in different combinations, and then intermixing during the development of the embryo,[a] and where "everything turned out as it would have if it were on purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way."[9] Other philosophers who became more influential at that time, including Plato (c. 428/427—348/347 BC), Aristotle (384—322 BC), and members of the Stoic school of philosophy, believed that the types of all things, not only living things, were fixed by divine design.

Chinese
Ancient Chinese thinkers such as Zhuang Zhou (c. 369—286 BC), a Taoist philosopher, expressed ideas on changing biological species. According to Joseph Needham, Taoism explicitly denies the fixity of biological species and Taoist philosophers speculated that species had developed differing attributes in response to differing environments.[18] Taoism regards humans, nature and the heavens as existing in a state of "constant transformation" known as the Tao, in contrast with the more static view of nature typical of Western thought.[19] — Wikipedia

I think we need to consider ideas of atoms and energy and what would have happened to history if these ideas consumed our consciousness instead of religion?

The atomic philosophy of the early Greeks
Leucippus of Miletus (5th century BCE) is thought to have originated the atomic philosophy. His famous disciple, Democritus of Abdera, named the building blocks of matter atomos, meaning literally “indivisible,” about 430 BCE......

The philosopher Epicurus of Samos (341–270 BCE) used Democritus’s ideas to try to quiet the fears of superstitious Greeks. According to Epicurus’s materialistic philosophy, the entire universe was composed exclusively of atoms and void, and so even the gods were subject to natural laws. — Britannica

Like what leaves the universe? All organic matter breaks down and is reassembled. And if we add the science of cells to all this, our thoughts may go into how we handle our bodies when we are dead? I am thinking it might be important to expose our bodies to nature so that carnivorous animals can repurpose our mitochondria.

Sky Burial
In this ritual, bodies are left outside, often cut into pieces, for birds or other animals to devour. This serves the dual purpose of eliminating the now empty vessel of the body and allowing the soul to depart, while also embracing the circle of life and giving sustenance to animals.

7 Unique Burial Rituals Across the World | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/list/7-unique-burial-rituals-across-the-world#:~:text=Sky%20Burial&text=In%20this%20ritual%2C%20bodies%20are,and%20giving%20sustenance%20to%20animals. — Britannica

We want to be one with God but not really. We can not be one with God and maintain our unique identity. Does not our ego hold us separate? Would not love unite us with the universe?

Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?
— Athena

As I'm sure you know, that idea has a long history. — T Clark

No, I do not know that. I know a tiny bit about East Indian thinking but not enough to claim understanding. I know there is a question about what consciousness is but not enough to know that line of thinking. I am really asking a question about our connection with the pool of knowledge that is open to us. I know we do not perceive the world as the first human beings did and I am fascinated with how our consciousness has changed. Like I don't think many of us live in fear of Satan and demons today but know in the past Satan and demons seemed very real. Before that, I don't think humans imagined things they could not see and I think they were more aware of what can be seen than modern people are. This seems potentially important.

First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement. — Nickolasgaspar

"First of all" I followed the replies and got back to the above post. You do not think that statement is a concern with technological correctness? And that is very close to "political correctness" and I have some concerns about how all this correctness is manifested. Perhaps I should not make an issue out of this but it seems a little dangerous.

Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :) — chiknsld

I do not know exactly what you mean, but I feel strongly about proper thinking being humble and open to other possibilities because how we feel when we engage each other is as important as being correct. I am thinking culturally. "I am right and you are wrong" thinking has manifested in so much hostility and even violence. We have reactionary politics that seems explosive and a loss of community. That worries me because I think things go better when we like each other.

-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"?? — Nickolasgaspar

Since people became concerned with technological correctness.

The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.

I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.

Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.

What do you think? — chiknsld

I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know.

Whereas,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness.

I like those kinds of stories too. I don't see them as in conflict with the ideas I expressed. Well, maybe they are or seem to be, but the sign of a philosopher is to be able to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at one time. — T Clark

I like your reply. A sign of wisdom is knowing how much we do not know. That is why this is one of my favorite forums. We can talk about the unknown and agree or disagree and be okay with all the different ideas. If we want to be more sure of something we can look for facts to support our notions, and we know our ideas and opinions and not absolute, undeniable, unquestionable truth.

Back to Darwin. Science is claiming some learned information can be passed on in genes and for me, that opens the door to new possibilities. Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?