Prussia?

I'm curious to know more about your views. Do you publish anything on this subject? Can you suggest any readings that support or elaborate more on your statements? — neomac

I hate it when I make mistakes like that. Obviously, I meant "Persia" when I wrote "Prussia" and was speaking of the Persian invasion of the Greeks. :grimace:

For years I tried to write a book and I have given up. I have put information into forums and gotten such a negative reaction it seems that my effort is futile. Your response is very surprising!

The notion of Prussian military bureaucracy being applied to citizens may have come from Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem". Little pieces of information come from different books and my memory is not precise. However, when it comes to understanding the Military-Industrial Complex I think Charles Sarolea's book is the best and it is free online. He uses Prussian quotes that make you feel like a fly on the wall when big decisions were being made. I hate the violence of war, but the strategy of war is thrilling! War strategy and technology go hand and hand and often have dramatic social ramifications. In modern times, the connection between war and technology has great economic ramifications. The internet is the result of government military research and then the genius of men who saw the potential of this technology and how to create a new reality.

A main source of information is an old college text "Public Administration and Public Affairs" by Nicholas Henry. That one confirms the US adopted the German bureaucratic model and explains why that was necessary. The bureaucratic organization we had was extremely inefficient and something like a national pension plan would be impossible without improving the technology of the system we had.

Very important to understanding how Roosevelt and Hoover worked together to radically change the US federal government is the book "Big Government" by Frank Gervasi.

Then we go from those books to the ones that warn the US could be moving in a dangerous direction because of wartime government contracts and those who had those contracts and wanted to keep them. These books were written at the end of WWII. The US demobilized after every war until the Korean war. That is when Eisenhower embedded the Military-Industrial Complex in the US. Part of the reason for doing that was keeping our economy strong. Instead of shutting down the war industry and ending jobs, we repurposed their mission and kept them going.

I lost my best source of information about what Eisenhower did to embed the MIC when the U of O document library decided to digitize the books and removed the books from the shelf! This should be considered a crime against society! Now, none of that information can be accessed without knowing the precise title of what one is looking for. In the past, a person could spend all day looking through the books, made when history was made, and discover unexpected things, like Eisenhower's letter to Germany praising Germany for their contribution to democracy. Or what Eisenhower did to create new links between government and research and new links between government and the media. Setting us up for the insanity we have today and making it possible for Reagan and Bush Jr. to misuse their power to lie to us and use our military might in ways it should not be used. Without access to those books, I can no longer validate what I read.

Those links Eisenhower made, along with the 1958 National Defense Education Act, have serious social, economic, and political ramifications. But then it may be interesting to study the changes Roosevelt and Hoover made more carefully along with having a better understanding of the changes Eisenhower made. Most of us do not pay attention to the political matters that need our attention. Like people have accepted global warming and as not that unusual, we seem to think our government was always as it is today. Unless we are discussing this stuff, the reading can be too boring to interest anyone. It is pretty dry. :brow: But hey, history is dead, this is a new day and our technology has made us so superior we do not need to look back. :worry:

Too unnuanced for my taste. Maybe ok as a comparison, but Athens' democracy was also build on slaves and could only work by excluding the great mass of people from consensus decision making. The same actually goes for the US in times past. The model of democracy you seem to favour actually requires the exclusion of many people and many legitimate interests. Enlightenment democracy is democracy for the happy few. In the 19th century the challenge the Prussians faced and later the rest of the world was how to manage a mass society, a society in which everyone wanted a voice. One way was discipline and drilling as the school system does. You call specialization a poison to democracy and that goes hand in hand with this. Specialization though might well his sociological inevitability. It is not coincidental that the great sociologists of old were... Germans. The greatest of which, Max Weber, grew up in Prussia and very meticulously already analyzed the 'iron cage' of bureaucratization. — Tobias

:grin: "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (Germanerl Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress in Education for Democracy, August, 1939)

Our form of government is a republic. Only very small populations can have direct democracy and there was a time in Athens when every male citizen who came of age had to attend the governing meetings, so everyone understood the reasoning of the law and had an opportunity to change that reasoning, as a meeting of the gods debating until having a consensus.

I believe it is important we understand democracy as a culture not the form of government. Government is only one aspect of democracy. We retain the power of the people by electing representatives that is a republic. However, again when we are not transmitting that culture through education, we can not manifest democracy any more than a church will manifest Christianity if it puts the Bible in a back corner and teaches math and science instead of Bible stories.

Yes, I do and find it fascinating. Also here I see many links to governmentality research. The states of Europe, in the 18th and 19th due to mutual competition perfected the science of the state, aptly called 'statistics'. Germany, but also France and the UK had to mobilize the people to gain the upper hand in the race for the colonies. In the US there was space enough, no competition and there was enough land to carve out a good agricultural living. However, do not idealize one form or the other. Those children of God also ruthlessly murdered the native Americans and institutionalized a system of racial aprtheid until well into the 20th century. Ideas in the 18th and 19th century were just very backward everywhere. — Tobias

You have a very important perspective on the development of government, but there is one more thing we need to know.

Government research :lol: I minored in public policy and administration. It was the most depressing time in my life! In the 60's I thought I wanted to be a social worker. Learning about government ended that desire! We adopted the German model of bureaucracy that goes with the Prussian model of education.
It is essential we understand education and war, and education and government order, andpreviously you mentioned military order!

The Prussian model of government is the Prussian military order applied to citizens. This begins with Prussian generals determining the military action and precisely defining every single task that is necessary to pull this off. Once the plan is complete, the swarm of ants (army) will do exactly as planned, even if every general is killed. Unlike kingdoms, bureaucracies never die.

In the old bureaucratic order used by the government and all businesses, everything depended on the individual aptitude of the person doing the job. If that person died or left for other reasons, it would throw the whole operation into chaos. The replacement would not do the job exactly as the person before, but organize the job to take advantage of his best abilities and delegate other responsibilities to someone else. That means everyone would have to adjust to the new person's way of doing things.

That was very inefficient and it was tied to nepotism. :gasp: You might imagine the problems with that. And this is also a social problem, a social problem the English education protected. England strongly supported the division of classes that they had and rejected Germany's education for technology because education for technology tends to be a social leveler. Suddenly with education, the commoners qualify for jobs because they have the training, AND hiring is based on merit. Merit hiring means uncle Joe who is an alcoholic and is lacks the necessary knowledge/training does not get the job, but the job is given to the man with no breeding, but the right training. Education for good citizenship and education for a good Englishman was not so different. As I stated, US education was about good citizenship, not technology and that meant the US was technological behind Germany and not ready for war. But Abraham Lincoln who grew up in the boonies could become president.

Sorry, that was very convoluted. President Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy shortly after the end of WWII. Education for technology and merit hiring is a social/economic leveler. Unfortunately, Eisenhower realized too late, the modern German model of bureaucracy, and education, leads to dependency on specialized experts. He warned us of that danger, but most Americans think what I am saying is a "conspiracy theory". They do not know enough about bureaucratic organization to see the problem. No matter what system is used, there will be problems. The Prussian model of bureaucracy is far superior to the one the US had. We could not have a national pension plan without that change. However, our past education, liberal or classical education is essential to our liberty and democracy.

You are right about the importance of governmental development, but we might want to keep Tocqueville's 1835 (Democracy in America) warning in mind. We are becoming a despot that is opposed to the democracy we had. Or as Aldous Huxley said. "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 and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely."

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and only when citizens understand the importance of obeying the law (based on the laws of nature) can they have liberty.

That explains my question about the embeddedness of your research, because you would be burdened doing everything by yourself without other to talk to and to compare data with others who share a similar interest. Historic research is very hard to do because you need a grasp of the interlocking structures of these societies you examine. — Tobias

Oh for sure, for sure! I desperately need the input of others! What we are thinking needs to be challenged from an outside source or we are not really thinking. This is why the Conceptual method is so important and what is wrong with the Behaviorist method. learning increasingly complex concepts stimulates true thinking. The Behaviorist method is about memorizing the required information and passing test. The Behaviorist method is programming, not developing a thinking human being. Have you seen the movie The Reader". I saw it long ago and my memory is vague, but the gist is a German woman who is illiterate is found guilty of war crimes. She was not guilty but was hiding the fact she could not read. If she had let that be known she would have been found innocent. A man takes interest in her and when she goes to prison, he sends her audio tapes of the classics. You see, she was only following orders and that was being a good Nazi and she had no concept of independent moral judgment and refusing to follow orders. That would have depended on knowing the classics and thinking about right and wrong.

Why do we recoil at Nazis following orders? Why have today's prisoners who, in prison, study the classics, become changed, people? Here is a problem with Christianity- it is not Jesus saving anyone but learning good moral judgment, and social rules, good citizenship, and peer support and pressure that makes us good. When we had liberal education based on the classics and being literate, we were fulfilling the promise of the enlightenment. Education for technology does not do that! Now we have a technologically very smart society, without wisdom.

The belief that we are evil unless saved by Jesus, is an educational problem because it has pit Christians against higher-order thinking skills that are essential to good moral judgment and small things like understanding why we should wear and mask and get vaccinated. Do you realize we actually have churches leading the fight against wearing masks and getting vaccinated?! Education for technology is not education for science and it is not education for good moral judgment. Education for technology prepares the young to rely on authority. Now we have an amoral society, that is threatened by both anarchy and authoritarianism, and the US doesn't have a leg to stand on in the international fight for democracy, and Trump is our Hitler, and some of his followers are in prison.

I am dying out here with this insight and no voice to answer everyone's question about what has gone wrong and what can we do about it. The 1958 National Defense Education is destroying the US. Now our children's libraries are filled with literary trash like "Captian Underwear" because that is what children will read, and no classics because children will not read the classics. Damn, right the kids won't read them, because they are not being educated to value them. While teachers blame the parents for not caring about their children and parents blame the schools for all the problems. And no one knows what the enlightenment had to do with our advancement nor what it means to defend democracy in the classroom. But we understand our right to bear arms. And I think we got talking about education by here by starting with global warming. This January Oregon is breaking temperature records, day after day. We think we know science, but we do not. We know technology and Christianity.
.

That is very interesting. I am really interested in your research because indeed schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society. In that sense I really like this foray in different education systems. I did (and do) not know enough about the change in education system in the 18th and 19th century. So your old text books are really great sources of information. Can I ask, do you have a theory for your research, in other words is it guided by a certain hypothesis or theoretical framework? I am immediately thinking about a Foucauldian research on 'governmentality' and what the governmentality is of these different systems of schooling, the old American way and the Prussian system. Do you do your research yourself or in the context of a PhD research? Is there a research community or are you working on this by yourself? — Tobias

I am sorry I am only a domestic woman. Pay careful attention here and look for the gray that is both black or white. And know your questions are greatly expanding my own understanding of everything! You are giving me an enlightening moment of the kind that brings me to this forum. I do have a college education and I listen to college lectures daily. But I have never transitioned into the kind of educated person of which you speak. To me, your questions about having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD, is a language from Mars. Despite all my education, and self-education, I am still a domestic woman. And I will think I have died and gone to heaven if you are willing to explore this with me.

When I was working on a degree in Gerontology, I learn the difference between being a domestic woman and a college graduate. These are completely different consciousness with different languages and this plays to into the other questions you have asked. I learned about this difference through researching middle-aged women. The research I needed was not in the abstracts. I had to rely on the research women had done, and the work was not accepted by the males who control what goes into the abstracts. I am not talking about feminism here or sexual prejudice. I am talking about male and female differences and education was ruled by women! Because it was seen as most women's work like child care.

Oh dear, this is rough and I have to divide your reply because there is so much to say here. Not only do women think and behave differently from men, but domestic women have a different language and organize themselves differently. Women are much more personal than men who are organizational. My male professor was a chauvinist male whose knowledge of life was limited to men just like him. His vision of the world and mine clashed!. He refused to accept any research that was not in the abstracts, which goes with your interest in having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD,". How male those values are. He also shared with us that when his father died, he put his mother in a residence where she had to be completely dependent on others, and would not even allow her to drive. He forced her to give up her home, her friends, her whole life, and then said to class he wonders if that made it more difficult for her to adjust to being a widow. This was the head of the gerontology department and he could not have done worse to his mother. But what he did is typical male thinking according to the research I did. In the past women took care of everyone and men paid for someones to care for the children and the aged.

Now, what do you think education should teach us? You said "schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society." I said women were in control of education. Yes, the education experts tended to men. All the positions of "authority" would have been held by men, except in the one-room schools, where an 18-year-old woman was expected to give children of all ages an education, as though this were no different from any other child care. I am speaking of my grandmother's generation of teachers. Most grade school teachers were women. All education was based on liberal education. We teach children math to teach them how to think. We teach them the American mythology that is in history books. Education is about literacy and reading the classics, not about having a high-tech job. Am I conveying a feeling about education that is helpful in answering your questions?

No. Enlightenment was about introducing a new view and calling those not complying to the view ignorant.[/quote]

Okay, have a good day. We are done.

That's not the solution. Who we do it for then? For nature's sake? — Raymond

Yes, it is an important correction that must be made. We live on a finite planet and if we do not respect the limits of the finite reality, we will self-destruct. There may be no future for humanity if global warming goes beyond the tipping point. The health of the earth is vital to humanity. If we don't take care of it, it can not take care of us.

Once it were state and God going hand in hand. Today, Science has taken His place. — Raymond

Yes

While the Enlightenment was intended to set people free from the evil and madness done in the name of God, it essentially does the same what God was doing back then.

Yes, the enlightenment is about ending ignorance and realizing the human potential. It might be easier to understand if we replace the word "God" with the word "logos". Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest is speech. What is the reason of the earth warming?

I'm not attacking science (a modern sin! A taboo even. It's not spoken about and even the thought against science seems off...so...) but only pointing to the position it seems to have assigned to itself. On a global scale it is legally enforced to learn its principles, approach to problems, its view on nature, etc. while long before its advent people managed to live life on different principles and the irony is that these ways of life are now almost whiped away from the surface of the world by a world calling itself the free first world, while in fact it's a power hungry latecomer.

Exactly what do you think science is?

[qoute]But again, this is not a plead against science. I like science! But it's just one story amongst many, though the many get less and less (although it seems there is more variety then ever in the world), and it seems we're stuck with it. People have their ways though and probably a better world will be the result.[/quote]

How do explanations of how things happen become a story? The greenhouse gases that are causing excessive global warming are man-made. How is that equal to a story that can be as fictional as religious stories?

Anyway I think there is more than meets the eye. We need a new type of education, one that moves towards questioning and investigation and towards interdisciplinarity instead of specialization. More and more it becomes clear we need to see problems not in specialistic isolation but in a holistic way, leaving space for uncertainty and complexity. It will ask a lot of us, because the old model is the one we use still even thought it may well be out dated. In that we can shake hands (if the pandemic would not prevent it...) — Tobias

Specialization is poison to democracy! Can we turn to classical literature once again? Pericles' raised the spirits of his fellow citizens at a funeral for fallen warriors, by comparing the differences between Sparta and Athens, and why Athens is right to defend its way of life in war. Sparta specialized their males for military service. All other work was done by slaves. Sparta determined what citizens needed and provided it through the use of slaves. Our technocracy is in line with Sparta the enemy of Athens.

When Persia invaded, both Spartans and Athenians joined forces to fight them off. It was at this moment in time that Athens became a democracy, leading to a new temple for Athena that taught the world of the new relationship of the gods, and the way of democracy (an imitation of the gods, rule by reason). In the past, the person or persons who ruled were men of power. Those who owned land and had wealth could hire their own armies for defense or to go loot the Persians. You know, brute force having nothing to do with reason.

But this new social/political organization was not completely new. It was an imitation of Sparta's political organization however, Athens did not provide for citizens, and did not control their lives as Sparta did. Pericles thought it was very important that Athenians were generalized and not specialized, and were individuals not an organization like ants!

The US had education that generalized everyone. Education for well-rounded individual growth. At the same time was education for independent thinking. These differences are why I keep speaking of the 1958 change in education that most certainly took us in the direction of specialization andreplaced education for independent thinking with "groupthink". We have been killing our democracy since 1958.

If state and science are separated a big first step will be made. — Raymond

How can that be? Ideally, democracy is rule by reason. How does a creature with an evolved brain develop its potential for reasoning well? How does it organize a society that can live by reason, rather than by instinct?

The reason I said that you should pick your battles was not because of qualms with you over this subject. It was through your connection of it to Biden's foreign policy. I respect your knowledge on the education system and that is why I honestly asked you for sources so I could inform myself with them, which you graciously gave. Your claims about Biden being undemocratic I found unconvincing and therefore I told you so. Your connection of them in my view weakens the strength of your argument and I think it is also a field in which you are less at home, but I may be wrong. Of course feel free to ignore them. I noticed something else as well, namely that when we breach a topic such as environmentalism and its Manichean roots we somehow ended up talking about education. That happened earlier as well as I recall. — Tobias

The links I gave you were not my sources of information. My sources of information are old books about education and include old grade school textbooks that are no longer in circulation. And thank you so much for recognizing the biggest reason humans disagree is different sources of information. I seem to be at war with everyone because my sources of information came from the past.

My comment about Biden being undemocratic when he had an exclusive meeting about democracy should not be faulted, because democracy is rule by reason, and that is not possible when people are cut out of the reasoning. How I can explan this so it is understood? We are supposed to have rule by reason, not authority over the people, not military and economic might that we use to control others. That is not what made the US great. Rule by reason is debating until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, like the Greek gods. We need to go back to the Greeks when they asked "how do the immortals resolve their differences? "The answer is, they debate until they have agreed on the best reasoning. Can you paraphrase that? You might have better wording for it than I do.

Anyway, I respect you very much on this particular topic. I did not wish to come off condescending, if so I apologize. On the other hand I also do not find your statement that I should be on topic very fair. I also did not use that line against you when you broached the subject of environmentalism and the question of Manichean religion. I like to explore this topic of education with you and rest assured I respect you knowledge.

My apologies. The problem you mentioned in this paragraph was totally my fault and I realized that while driving to the store. I regretted not having a more playful response to what you said about Athena. And as I said above, I feel like I stand alone because of the old books giving me a different perspective. I feel very burdened by the information I gathered many years ago, when I began buying old books about education to gain an understanding of my grandmother's generation of teachers, who thought they were defending democracy in the classroom. :lol: :cry: Oh, the futility of it all. My grandmother was a very important source of information and you would have to know her to know why. She and her generation are all dead now and facts are not enough to explain how different our past was.

That said there are some reasons to think you paint an overly dark and indeed Manichean picture of the former US system and the Prussian system of education. Certainly, the education system developed in Prussia was aimed at nation building. It was also aimed at giving the populace the skills to survive in a very rapidly changing world in which bureaucracy and industrialization became driving forces. The German society in the 18th century was nothing like it is now. Illiteracy was rampant, petty princes ruled petty kingdoms, the population lived in conditions of serfdom, also mentioned on the wikipedia page you gave as a source. There was no such thing as mass education. thinking for oneself was at the time always only done by an elite of either merchant classes or nobility. It is easy to criticize a system of mass schooling from the luxury of the modern day world, but I would reckon the access to reading and writing for the population was a big step up from what it had been.

Beautifully said! :cheer: I am thrilled to read more of your thoughts on this subject.

Moreover the idea of nation-building in the way described in the video is abhorrent to us of course and especially with the second world war in mind the video becomes even more ominous. However seen in the light of the history of Germany it was not such a silly idea. In the 17th century Germany has fought one of the most ruthless civil wars in history that depopulated much of the country and led to 30 years of warfare in which the German realms (it was not a country back than) tore themselves apart. Germany faced powerful and colonial neighbors in France and Russia. Seen from the perspective of the European history of incessant warfare, the German goals become understandable. The picture of emperor Frederick also deserves a bit of nuance. He was seen as an enlightenment figure in correspondence with Voltaire and a benefactor of the arts and sciences. that goes to show again that your appeal to enlightenment ideals is not as straightforward as you expect them to be. enlightenment ideals value order, progress and mastery of the natural world through education and technology. How they turn out in practice is much more difficult to predict. They may also be used by an emperor who rules despotically.

There are also reasons to view the youtube clip with a bit of suspicion. Firstly it cherry picks among the quotes of Fichte. The wikipedia page for instance gives this as a Fichte quote: "Fichte asked for shaping of the personality of students: "The citizens should be made able and willing to use their own minds to achieve higher goals in the framework of a future unified German nation state"." Now that sounds very different already.

The second reason is a look at the one of the most 'command and control' institutions there is, the military. Prussian military tactics and later German military tactics were base on a combination of obedience and creativity. The adoption of a much more flexible approach to warfare based on objectives to be reached, but leeway to the commanders in the field as to how to reach them, required creativity and independent thinking. These abilities led to Germany being able to take on much more powerful foes 'on paper'. this actually mirrors the German research university, which also fosters creative, if specialized research. What I see in sociological terms is the bureaucratization an professionalization of education Now of course all for the greater glory of the nation, but they were regrettably very nationalistic times. We are talking about the age of colonialism, a very dark age in European history.

The third reason is that the video draws a straight line from Prussian education to Hitler and calls Fichte (Not pronounced 'Fitcht', or something but Fi'h'te) the father of modern neo-nazism. That claim is just silly. Why not simply nazism but neo-nazism? Those are different people from different cultural eras. The Prussian educational system might well be conducive to creating a law and order mentality that benefited Hitler's rise but it totally forgets the Weimar era in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

I have to stop here because my head is being overwhelmed with your points and my head screaming replies. The root of the illusion of disagreement is the difference between Prussia and Germany. Have you read Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem'? He was trying to warn the world of Germany's intentions to go to war and he was ignored until the first world war had begun. This was one of the first books I bought when I began my research. I bought it because of great admiration for the Germans and I had heard the US had adopted the German model of education. The other book I bought that same day, was a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Convention. These two books are the beginning of the burden I feel.

Charles Sarolea said the Germans are artistic, creative, congenial people and the Prussians are sour and dour. He explains because of the 30-year war and Germany feeling threatened exactly as you explained, they gladly accepted Prussian rule. The Germans just wanted peace and an end to all the conflict that tore them apart. They became politically irresponsible and this really distressed Charles because he saw them as the superior people. All this relates to what happened to the US and Trump being our Hitler and the political struggles we have now because of reactionary politics just as Germany had before Hitler was able to take power. There is an education link to all of this.

In the 1917 conference book, one of the speakers explains why we must adopt the German model of education for technology. Citizens of the US refuse to accept Germany was militarily/technologically superior to the US. Our false concept of our history is a HUGE problem. The US was soooo backward and unprepared for both world wars! :cry: That is why we are blindly and adamantly supportive of education for technology replacing the education we had. We have no concept of the importance of that past education and don't know what ending it has to do with being reactionary and leaning towards authoritarianism and anarchy and paranoia- an extreme need to be in control and superior.

When I speak of the US adopting the German model of education, I do not mean a one-time thing. The US did not have vocational training until we began mobilizing for war. We knew more about heroes and poetry (character building) than math, science, or how to use a typewriter. We really need to understand what education and wars have to do with each other. Industry wanted to close our schools claiming they were not getting their money's worth from education because they still had to train new employees, and they claimed the war caused a labor shortage. Teachers argued an institution good for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens.

Please give that paragraph some thought so you get the nuances in what I am saying. What I am saying is not without nuances! I just can not say everything all at once. Imagine entering a relatively high-tech war, with a population that knows though about technology. No typist, no mechanics, no engineers, but they know about Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Lincoln as national heroes and have an idea of what is expected of them as good citizens. You know, like God's good children. They knew our national mythology that had as much to do with real-life as Homer's books, that told the Greeks how to be Greeks. (Americanized Greek mythology)

The Prussians lived for the love of military might, as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. So we technologically were in big trouble but now think of the teachers' argument. Education for patriotic citizens and mobilizing the nation for war. The book of the1917 National Education Association is full of interesting information about mobilizing for war.

Now let us jump to 1958 and the new warfare of air warfare and nuclear missiles. President Eisenhower put the Military-Industrial Complex, also known as Hitler's New World Order, in place, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act is an essential piece to the Military-Industrial Complex. We can now mobilize for war in 4 hours or less, long before the citizens need to be mobilized for war. Patriotism was essential to past wars, it is no longer important. Are you thinking of the differences in education and the cultural differences? I hope so. I hope you come back with a reply that advances this discussion.

Too much said and some important points still not made. Like 1899 James Williams objection to Germany's education for technology.

You are assuming many classrooms can even HAVE this debate. Most are just trying to get by with the worst behavior problems (mainly in inner cities).. Education is wasted on the youth (mostly). I don't know how many people have told me that they hated history as a kid and it was only as an adult did they actually come to appreciate the understanding it brings to study it. Same with almost everything else..

But you are very right.. The US education system seems to essentially sift out the STEM students.. and tries to nurture them.. They will be the next engineering/science/doctor class used by the corporate overlords to dole out more technology. I have no doubt there was a concerted effort to promote this idea during the Cold War as a policy level decision.

That beings said.. federal decisions on education are usually at the level of funding, not so much curriculum It's up to the states and school boards to actually adopt any national recommendation. However, if they reject the recommendations, it's at their peril of losing funding probably. — schopenhauer1

I do not assume any classroom/school can have the debate about what has gone wrong with education, because no one knows enough to have that debate.

What determines human behavior?

Yes, it was a cold war decision to change the purpose and the focus of education. I remember my teachers walking around in a state of shock when they were told the purpose of education had changed. It was obvious something big had happened and I didn't know what until that afternoon when a male teacher explained the change. He said education was now to prepare us for a technological society with unknown values. That was the end of transmitting the culture that was the priority of education until then? There are good and bad consequences to that. By the way, History was about culture in the US and preparing the young to be good citizens.

The funding situation was not always as it is. The federal government DID NOT have a say in required education and in your list of who did, you forgot to mention parents. Can you think of the good and the bad of parents controlling their children's education? What is the benefit of the federal government getting involved with what children learn? What does our constitution say about the federal government controlling education?

Here you seem to take my position: Enlightenment philosophy hasn't yet trickled down to the rabble.

The Enlightenment was acceptance of what science could do for us and what we have achieved is far beyond what anyone imagined at the time of the enlightenment.
— Athena

Here, again, "we" is used too broadly. What a significant proportion of "we" has achieved is total rejection of science and scientific values. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Thomas Jefferson was very clear that only if our republic was defended in the classroom, would it be defended. He devoted his life to everyone having that education. We no longer know what the education was unless we make the effort to know that. It is easy enough to know. Just look up classical or liberal education. Or education for the enlightenment.

The Enlightenment left us with a belief in the value of learning, of the comprehensive role and scope of education and of its fundamental role in society. Its DNA includes critical thinking and free debate. Over generations, the mission of education developed around those principles.Jul 26, 2016 — Wikipedia

What is wrong here? There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. If people want liberty, they must transmit the culture that is essential to that. We stopped doing that in 1958 and are now leaning towards authoritarianism and anarchy. The Texas Republican 2012 agenda opposed education for higher-order thinking skills and some Christians also oppose education for the higher order thinking skills. Christianity has historically been a problem to education and progress.

Even a moron is enjoying the benefits of what we have achieved. The whole world is enjoying the benefits of what we have achieved and I am not overusing the word "we". Humanity has come a long way from when we shared this planet with Neanderthals. We can think of the word "we" as a nation or the whole of humanity and when it comes to global warming, we had better think "we" means all of us.

You're too generous with this pronoun. The bulk of us have learned little. If you need evidence relocate to rural America for a spell.

The Enlightenment exists in the hearts and minds of a tiny minority. The media obscure this by presenting a vision of the universal elite. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I am not accustomed to this forum being one of personal attacks instead of on-topic. Why do you assume I am unaware of rural areas? :rofl: My x kept the family isolated in rural areas and not even in cities are many literate in the Greek and Roman classics that are the foundation of our democracy. Even in the early days of the US when college-level education meant a classical or liberal education, only a tiny minority were aware of the Greek and Roman classics and later philosophies that lead to the democracy of the US.

The US did base public education on that literacy but it was Americanized, leaving us both ignorant of classics but with some knowledge of the principles. The Christian influence on this education and then dropping the transmission of our culture and education for good moral judgment, leaving moral training to the church in 1958, has led to the Christian mythology or our democracy and that makes matters very bad!

I have no idea what you think the "universal elite" know, but I doubt if it is the education that I believe is vital to our democracy.

I do not mind continuing this discussion at all. after all I am in education, though in the Netherlands, not in the US. We have no private schools (yet) for instance, but only community or state education. We do not have Ivy league colleges but nearly all our state universitties are in the top 100 world wide. I am not saying that to brag or anything but display that our system is still much more egalitarian.

I have my own ideas of how the grading system works, what education does, and it is not all positive or a success story. I am a keen reader of Michel Foucault. I do wonder where you got the distinction between the US and 'Hitler's' system of education from. never heard this comparison and it seems way too unnuanced for me. So if you could point out to me where you got these ideas from I would sincerely appreciate it.

I also think you should be careful mixing subjects. International relations is something different from the education system. All kinds of moves are played in the international arena and no, that arena is not democratic. the Westphalian order sees states as sovereign, not subject to some higher democratic body. Focus your ideas and take one step at the time. I sound overly school master like maybe. but focus and you will be able to win your battles.

"Know your enemy and know yourself and you will be victorious in every battle, know neither the enemy nor yourself and you will succumb in every battle "Sun Tzu, the art of war, paraphrased. A Goddess of strategy needs to learn these things. — Tobias

Okay, you know of Foucault so you know the following as well.

"The Prussian education system refers to the system of education established in Prussia as a result of educational reforms in the late 18th and early 19th century, which has had widespread influence since. The Prussian education system was introduced as a basic concept in the late 18th century and was significantly enhanced after Prussia's defeat in the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars. The Prussian educational reforms inspired other countries and remains important as a biopower in the Foucaultian sense for nation-building.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system — Wikipedia

The Origins of the American Public Education System: Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp7eVJNJuw

And in his 1899 book "TALKS TO TEACHERS ON PSYCHOLOGY; AND TO STUDENTS ON SOME OF LIFE'S IDEALS" pg 31-32, William James doesn't have a high opinion of the German model.

That is a start. I have more to say about the subject but it can wait until we resolve a problem.

If you want to discuss the subject with me, make sure you are on-topic and not judging me and putting me on the defensive by telling me what you think I should do. Athena is known to be bad-tempered when she is not respected. And yes, I also have a copy of "Sun Tzu, the art of war".

Don't let the big numbers (2022) fool you. This is still the Dark Age: still the Age of Christs and Kings.

The Enlightenment's down-trickle's discouragingly drip-drip. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I do not agree with that statement. The more we know, the more we can learn and the amount we have learned in the last century is far greater than we learned up to the 21 century. Today it is not a drip-drip but a flood of information and people, in general, can not keep up with it.

As I see the problem today, our demands and expectations are completely unreasonable. It takes much more to satisfy people today than it did before the 21 century. The Enlightenment was acceptance of what science could do for us and what we have achieved is far beyond what anyone imagined at the time of the enlightenment.

Maybe you should skip Bible Study Group next week. Take a breather. :roll: — jgill

:lol: Nicely said.

I like the idea of driving an electric car. As a high school student in the early 1950s I would take the electric buses in Atlanta downtown frequently. But an accident involving electric vehicles is scary. All that electrical energy could fry you to a crisp. Gasoline is dangerous, too, but it's not "alive" like electricity.

But imagine all those cars, buses and trucks running out of power in dire conditions, and then efforts to charge them all to get started again. Whereas along comes a truck squirting a couple of gallons of gas into tanks as it slowly passes by.

However, technology will improve for E-vehicles. — jgill

What a wake-up call! That is a very good objection to electric cars. We had an electric car blow-up stuff where the accident happened and I think we all have novocaine in our brains, including me, What happened was alarming but I don't think any of us thought it through as well as you have. We do not want pieces of the battery crashing into our living rooms!!! That happened and the people who lived in the house are lucky to be alive.

As for the cars stuck on the freeway, no one trapped in snow should keep the car running. Those folks were lucky because the snow was not falling a building up around their cars. North of us, people caught in a snowstorm were asphyxiated as the snow built up around the cars and the cars were filled with exhaust fumes.

What you said about having to recharge all those cars if they were electric, is also alarming! For sure we need to rethink how to manage such situations.

Moral means knowing the laws of Nature? Isn't knowing these laws the cause of the chaos we increasingly observe in Nature?
I know what you mean, but if we don't want to find out how Nature behaves at all levels, in every direction, and at every height and depth, wouldn't that be better for Nature? We are taught from small age that acquiring knowledge is of uttermost importance. The children are treated as ignorant to be filled with a kind of knowledge only possessed by the ruling power, which makes the claim of possessing objective knowledge to be obtained by strict methods. The methods as well as the value judgement of the importance of the subject matter is subjective though, but in modern society it's made the so-called objective norm, while this so-called objectivity is just a label to cover the subjective essence, thereby lending it a justified power position, like God was once used to justify claims on power. — Raymond

Yes, moral is knowing the laws of nature and good manners, and that concept goes with democracy and liberty.

"Isn't knowing these laws the cause of the chaos we increasingly observe in Nature?"

I can understand how someone would think that, but I believe in every case the chaos is the result of not knowing enough. There is no way we could have known enough because we did not have the tools essential to learning what know today. For example, we could not know of bacteria and viruses until we had microscopes. We could not know of the atmosphere before we had the technology essential to measuring what is far above us. We learned a lot by studying other planets and that requires getting to them. We didn't know we polluting rivers and oceans would become a problem until it was, and in some cases, with better knowledge, we have been able to reverse the damage and this is why it is essential we pay attention to science, so we can reverse the damage.

With the tools and knowledge we have today, we can learn far, far more than humanity could have known before. And be clear about this, without the knowledge and technology we have today, our life expectancy would be 45 years and many children would die before they could reproduce. We could not feed the world if we knew only what we knew 100 years ago. Fear of a god, prayers, and burning candles never did as much to end evil as science and technology has done.

Unfortunately, no holy book prepared us for science, and overcoming real evils and religions have become a huge barrier to doing better than infecting people with a virus because we ignore science, and keeps us contributing to global warming because we ignore science. Religion is promoting ignorance and this is a terrible thing.

"The children are treated as ignorant to be filled with a kind of knowledge only possessed by the ruling power,"

That was not so 100 years ago because no one knew enough to do that. The best we could do is prepare the young for independent thinking and lifelong learning. People were encouraged to use local libraries and buy books such as "Science of Citizens". I think a big problem was developed in 1958 when President Eisenhower asked Congress to pass the National Defense Education Act. That act changed everything. It was supposed to end in 4 years but never ended. We replaced liberal education that taught independent thinking, with education for technology and groupthink. We are no longer aware of what science has to do with democracy, morals, and liberty, and we have technology confused with science.

"while this so-called objectivity is just a label to cover the subjective essence, thereby lending it a justified power position, like God was once used to justify claims on power."

You said that very, very well. That is exactly what is wrong with the direction education took in 1958. I could not say that better than you have. Thank you. I sincerely mean that. What you said is why I keep arguing we are as Germany was when Hitler came to power because this is what we educated for. This is why President Eisenhower in his farewell address, warned us of the Military-Industrial Complex that he put in place and the danger of relying too much on experts.

Are you serious or being facetious? Are you choosing religion over science?

Whoo, that was a pretty negative point of view and I immediately thought to President John Kennedy and his wife Jacqueline and Camelot. We loved them. Or how about the pharaohs who kept everything in order and could prevent chaos? We can love our leaders and from the days of Sumer, we can replace them when they obviously are failing. Democracy can mean replacing them peacefully, and granted having to replace them through violent means, is quite problematic. But in general, turning to a leader was a choice because good leaders are essential. However, in the past, rulers did not have the technology to manage the details of our lives. Even the most powerful pharaoh had very little power because s/he just did not have the bureaucratic organization, nor the technology of modern-day rulers.

Today many people appear to love Trump as a god. Now that might justify your cynicism. Biden does not have that benefit because those who voted for Biden were voting against Trump, and from there, they base decisions on reason, not worshipping anyone! Pleasing democrats is more like herding cats. :lol: Good luck with that.

Imagine if all those vehicles stranded on I95 for 24 hours in snow and ice had been electric. — jgill

How would that make a difference?

The only thing left to do is to accept the wrath of the almighty Creator, succumb to His Divine Word, bow to His Infinite Creation, and show eternal gratitude for His Wisdom, given to us by His Word, to be heard by submissive prayer only. Let's pray He will get a grip and restore Natural order. If not, we are doomed for sure. — Raymond

No God can save the planet, only humans can stop the destruction. It is about morals and morals mean knowing the laws of nature and good manners. Those two things would resolve many problems.

Best would be if we all just are put to sleep for a 1000 years and give nature a breather so we can be kissed awake and finally feel home in a world from which we are estranged and only the possessing class seems to feel well and project their silly ways into the world? — Raymond

What I read said within 30 years 50% of the carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere. I think that would stabilize things. However, we need to reduce the number of people on the planet if we are to live in harmony with nature. I think we need to figure out the natural limits for every city, By that, I mean without importing anything, including water, how many people could live off the land? Then make it a goal to maintain a limited population that can live in harmony with the land. This would require adopting an aboriginal reverence for the land like a religion with a crazy notion that violating the laws of nature will have bad consequences. Which in turn requires science to understand the laws of nature and how to live with them.

Catastrophe theory makes it perfectly clear: the Heavenly Holiness should be worshipped with every divinely created bone in our submissive and humble bodies. If not,
He will, without remorse, and firmly, strictly, and justified, bestow humanity with his Ivory Bashing, and catastrophe will descend from His untouchable and unshakeable Sacred Realm, cleansing the Earth from a God-forgotten species, unwillingly to bath in His immaculate light and conform to His unquestionable Will. Brothers and sisters, let's hold hands and prey together. Let's ask the Great Annointed to release us from our pagan ways, and to restore his blissful order before too long. Oh unparalelled Being, our blessed King and Savior! Bless Thou Glorious name, leading us to Ultimate Victory. — Raymond

:gasp: And maybe we should burn "those people" who reject God, out of town so God will stop being angry with us? Or maybe we should be walking from town to town whipping ourselves to appease the God that is punishing us with a deadly disease?

My warning to you is, maybe you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want democracy and humanist values and you complain that we have now 'become like Hitler Germany', but especially the manichean battle against chaos you mention was a trope for Hitler Germany. The relationship between National socialist thought and green thought is far from clear. You equate national socialism with blind technology, but especially that is what a thinker like Martin Heidegger characerized the US in the 1930s of. In Hitler Germany he saw a 'third way', a rejuvenation, against technology! If anything Hitler Germany was not anti-Green. So the problem is, even though you want the good for the world and you think your points are helping it come about, you might end up with something that is not so amenable to democracy and enlightenment at all. — Tobias

When the priority of US education was education for good citizenship, we used the Conceptual method. That is teaching increasingly complex concepts. Under this system, there are only a few right or wrong answers. Rather than knowing the right answer, there are only are different points of view. This leads to overall uncertainty and some find a problem with that. I see that as the solution to our worst problems. Those who think can know the will of God and absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous and this is our greatest international and national problem today! Good logic acknowledges we do know everything and should always move forward with a little dought in what we think we know.

Education for technology destroyed a much wiser system of education and lead the young to believe that with technology and the right education for technology they can be superior to their elders, and superior to people in other nations, and superior to all those who do not have their education. We have promoted ideas of superiority in obvious ways, such as the notion that going to the "right colleges" makes people superior to those who just went to a community or a state college. Or those who have A grades are superior to those who have C grades. Or those who believe this and not that, are superior. Perhaps if we continue to discuss this I can think of betters words for explaining what has gone terribly wrong! It is not just that what we know that is important but also how we learn to think.

We replaced the Conceptual method with the Behaviorist method and the Behaviorist method is also used for teaching dogs. The Behaviorist method goes with "No Child Left Behind" and core education and teaching to prepare children how to answer correctly on tests. :broken: That is not education for wisdom nor is it education for democracy. I don't know if my words are explaining the importance of the difference? What we have is what Hitler had when he came to power and this is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. Washington was a very humble man who doubted his wisdom. Now we seem to demand our presidents be egomaniacs who throw their weight around and act tough and aren't afraid to make demands of leaders of other countries. That is not democracy but the path to war. I am extremely disappointed with Biden and his get-tough talks that attack the dignity of national leaders. Having an exclusive meeting for democratic leaders and excluding China or any other country is not how democracy works!

I am not sure if this relates to your topic but some people believe that the current climate change and some other problems are the vengeance of God. The Old Testament shows that God has a wrathful anger as well as having the loving and forgiving aspects represented by the figure of Jesus. — Jack Cummins

I understand that and that superstition has led to a very bad situation. The believers and nonbelievers are in a serious conflict. I have found public broadcasting to be very informative and take hope in that.
That is a hope science wins out against superstition.

I am also aware of the ancient prediction that sooner or later there will be more life on earth than the earth can support. I do not believe predictions of doom are just superstition but also the result of observation and logic. I feel so passionate about this because if we believe what is happening is the result of human choices, we can take steps to manage the problem. If we think what is happening is all about a God, we are powerless to make necessary changes. Just as Christians made themselves powerless against Genghis Khan when they believed God sent Genghis Khan to punish them. At this time in history, such superstition should no longer be such a big problem!

Japan is offering us an interesting alternative as it is blending technology with human needs. They are evolving the ability to be very productive with fewer humans. Not only more produtive but also they are building our humanness into that technology. Our technological society needs to increase its human sensitivities.

The New Age holds so much promise and this is such an exciting time. There is a chance of a new enlightenment that will be manifest in consciousness so different from the past, the people of the future will not be able to relate to the primitive lives we have had, of humans exploiting humans, other animals, and the planet with no reverence for our planet and other life forms. We need a different value system and some people know that. :grin:

What you describe is I think currently being developed. It has always been there in Western thought actually but it has not always been dominant. Schwarz and Thompson, two economists and sociologists define it as an 'egalitarian perspective', Sociologist Aaron Wildavsky defines it as a perspective of harmony. Traditional enlightnement values, values we still live with today proritize control of nature through technological means and progress through economic an cultural development.

The harmony perspective on the other hand is the one embraced by ecology. The sociologist and ecologist Anna Bramwell calls much of ecological reasoning and environmentalism 'manichean', presenting a battle between good nature and evil techno-science. Much of philosophy now is busy transllating philosophical ideas to the realm of the environment and to our relationship between man and nature. Martin Heidegger's essay on technology is an early example. Then came Hans Jonas 'The principle of responsibility'.

You might want to delve in ecological thought for answers to your question. I do think currently that we gradually see a shift in perspective, from individualist to egalitarian. However, do not have many illusions about this shift, like every revolution there will be a lot of struggle. Ecology is not necessary friendly to your enlightenment values and your love for democracy. — Tobias

It appears you are very well-read and that is honorable. However, I must address what looks to me as an attack on technology and democracy.

Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite authors. It is from him and classical philosophy that we learn the pursuit of happiness means lifelong learning and mass education is the only way to protect our democracy and liberty. However, that needs to include a classical or liberal education, math (to learn logical thinking skills), and science. We replaced that education with the German model of education for technology and now have what we defended our democracy against. We are as Germany was when Hitler took power because that is what that education for technology manifest. This is a disaster!

"Good education is essential for every human being. Educated people have a better understanding of the world, and their perspective about different things is better and more informed." Jefferson

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Jefferson

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." Jefferson

"Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day." Jefferson

There is no way we could keep the mass of humanity alive, that fills the earth today, without technology. We would not have growing populations of long-lived people without technology. We could not have the economies that enable us to provide a decent standard of living for so many people without technology.
However, technology is not science, and technology without wisdom can destroy life on this planet.
We need more than education for technology. We need a classical/liberal education as well so we have the wisdom to use our technology well. If we can achieve this before it is too late is questionable. This is going to be a tight horse race and either we will enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny, or we won't. It depends on how well the masses are educated. With the media we have today, there is no excuse for doing as poorly as we have done.

By "divine judgement" I meant that on Plato's account, as in Christianity, souls are judged after death - by some divine authority, not by other humans. — Apollodorus

This is not what I expected this thread to be about but I have some thoughts on this idea so I will verbalize them.

I have decided if there is life after death it will be the result of what we have done in our present incarnation and the accumulation of past incarnations. That is not a judgment of any being, but more directly the result of our earthly actions and thoughts. Either we learn math or we do not. We learn to manage our anger without being destructive or we do not. We become enlightened through the effort of doing so, or we do not. The essence of our being is what we make it and we are the one who decides what will follow, just as we decide which books to read.

I think I was a prostitute and a crimal who shared life with another woman and two men who were most certainly criminals. Stealing and killing was just a way of life. As the wolves also have their way of life.
My consciousness in this incarnation is different, so are my opportunities different. Like if there were a god in control and one who judges us, certainly if He gives us lives that bring out the best in us, instead of lives that will surely bring out the worst in us, we would do much better. What we experience is not just a matter of free will. It is also a matter of circumstances that we can not control. Granted I am may have never had that incarnation, but what seems like a memory of it very strongly influences all of my thinking and notions of justice.

Hebrews knew they were using stories. They were meant to be interpreted literally.
— Athena
Maybe you mean "They were not meant ..."? — Alkis Piskas

I hate it when I forget the little word "not". It makes a slight difference in what I mean. :lol:

So the trinity is the idea that somehow God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are separate, but one. Different manifestations of the same being. What I don’t understand is in the Bible, Jesus communicates directly with God. Wouldn’t this amount to nothing more than talking to yourself? How could Jesus feel forsaken, as he famously declares on the cross? Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has? I get it that expecting Christianity to make sense is asking too much of it, but I don’t think I’ve seen this objection to the idea of the trinity, and I’m wondering if it has been posed before, and if so what the responses were. — Pinprick

Pinprick, I think you have made an excellent argument that has not been made before. Clearly given that conversation with God, Jesus and God are not the same consciousness.

Zoarastrianism might have been the foundation of what became Pauline doctrine on the separation between the Absolute and the world. These notions were codified by Christian baptism of the works of Aristotle — Gregory

I so wish we all could discuss Zoarastrianism as easily as we discuss Judaism and Christianity because all these ideas were circulating and religions share them in common. Something that is very exciting to me is the notion of the Creator manifesting the universe by giving order to chaos which is also very much the responsibility of pharaohs to maintain that order. I believe we see this theme throughout oriental thinking. Might we have very interesting discussions if we spoke of global warming as the result of man-made chaos?

Scholars and theologians have long debated on the nature of Zoroastrianism, with dualism, monotheism, and polytheism being the main terms applied to the religion.[38][37][39] Some scholars assert that Zoroastrianism's concept of divinity covers both being and mind as immanent entities, describing Zoroastrianism as having a belief in an immanent self-creating universe with consciousness as its special attribute, thereby putting Zoroastrianism in the pantheistic fold sharing its origin with Indian Hinduism.[40][41] In any case, Asha, the main spiritual force which comes from Ahura Mazda,[21] is the cosmic order which is the antithesis of chaos, which is evident as druj, falsehood and disorder.[22] The resulting cosmic conflict involves all of creation, mental/spiritual and material, including humanity at its core, which has an active role to play in the conflict.[42]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism — Wikipedia

Hum, I think I will start a thread about chaos and global warming.

Ironically, the Christian Trinity omits a significant deity from Old Testament : Satan. Originally, he was a heavenly prince, whose job was to serve as legal prosecutor in God's dealings with humans (including the temptation of Jesus in the desert). By contrast, the Holy Spirit was basically a messenger boy, who unlike an Angel, didn't take on human form.

The Roman Christians didn't have a name for the abstract concept of "four" (only a symbol : IV). But they could have used the Greek word "tessera" to describe a four-in-one deity : the Holy Tesseract. The Hindu pantheon included both good and evil gods. For example demonic Kali, who was the 10th avatar of Vishnu. What's the name for a 10-in-one deity? :cool: — Gnomon

Decad is ten. And you have made delightful points. For sure why stop at a trinity? I never thought of that before, but what is the rule that a God can only be a trinity? And what of Satan? He is essential and I can not understand why Jesus wasn't an angel or Satan wasn't a son? Satan was much more popular than he is now. I don't think a church that lectured about Satan would be popular today. For our present understanding of God, we might want to know about Zoroastrians.

Zoroastrians divided the spiritual realm between forces of good and evil. I believe Judaism is a continuum of badness and goodness, not opposing forces. However, it was Cyrus a Persian king and Zoroastrian who freed the Jews from Babylon and ordered that Persia would pay for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. There was agreement that both religions would be at peace. This eastern influence carried an understanding of demons that did not exist in Judaism and Christians embraced that understanding of demons. They embraced a notion of spiritual reality that has an opposing force of evil. So you are right, the trinity is not the whole of spiritual reality.

PS__I was raised in a back-to-the-Bible fundamentalist church that did not accept add-on Catholic doctrines such as Trinity & Saints & Christmas. Ironically, some of us still celebrated Christmas, as a semi-secular holiday. So, I was always conflicted on that "holy day". With one crucial exception, our teachings were logical and subject to evidence. But the only true source of that evidence was a collection of ancient "scriptures", that were later compiled by the very church whose authority we rejected. :yikes: — Gnomon

:lol: And Christianity rejected the authority of the Jewish system of authority. Perhaps we need a good comedian to help us see the irony in that. Then along comes Mohammid and he retells his people about the same God and prophets. Then comes Mīrzā Ḥosayn ʿAlī Nūrī who starts the Bahai faith with is inclusive of the other three religions.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam break down into many separate groups all competing with each other for the "authority" to tell us about God's truth, and that is really humans telling us different things, and it has always been like this. The Bible was written by humans. This is a very serious matter because if we don't get it right, we do not become immortal. But if the trinity is our reality, we have a soul that is immortal. Ah, that is what hell is for, all those souls who don't get to go to heaven where Satan has control and we are eternally punished. I think Christianity has a problem with spiritual reality? Or for sure I have a problem understanding exactly what Christians believe.

You just pinpointed one of the many inconsistencies existing in the Bible! :smile:
Do this kind of stories ring a bell? To me yes. It reminds me of school essays written by children. It also reminds me how people with insufficient rational abilities argue in discussions, talk and write on various subjects. Arguing with those persons usually leads to nowhere. So is the study of the Bible! — Alkis Piskas

I am unsure of your meaning, but not many of us would be able to write a book on quantum physics, so maybe when people were writing the word of God, they also had a problem with that? Hebrews knew they were using stories. They were meant to be interpreted literally.

I’m not familiar with Egyptian faith but this notion is based on my own spiritual self-exploration. Is an expression of my own personal interpretation of the Bible.

Neither are Egyptians familiar with their ancient gods and reasoning. This is sad to me as they are caught up in religious conflicts with Christians, Jews, and Islam. I don't think anyone has an exclusive hold on "God's truth". As Joseph Campbell said, God came to everyone and their stories are different because they interpreted Him differently. That is going with the first point. We have human interpretations of God's truth, not an invaluable "God's Truth". Much of Christianity is Egyptian. Isis was the bread and water before Jesus became the bread and wine.

I guess that is true. Again this is based on my own personal perspective on faith. What I realize is there is no standard in how to believe, I guess that is why I am a harsh critic of Systematic Faith. I believe is a flawed practice and the only way, you can worship God and understanding the Nature of God is through Spirituality.

We came from a Source and we return to the source.

Whether you believe in Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Native American faith and even Atheism (return to the Universe into a natural elemental state). This theme of return to the source is Universal.

There is an increasing demand for a more spiritual experience. This is where our understanding of the trinity is so important! Some like to say we are spiritual beings having a human experience. That is totally different from an external God and Spirit, and needing to be saved by this external spirit/God.

{quote]I wonder what your "personal" definition of Christianity is? The argument seemed to be based more on technical systematic understanding than spiritual. And Trying to understand the rational reasoning and the mechanics of what makes God, God. Which is a different dynamic and different explanation than spiritual understanding.

Yes, there is a difference. Mine personally includes quantum physics. I am really sitting on the fence between being materialistic or more metaphysical. I have had experiences that can not be explained with a purely material understanding of reality.

My understanding is that we came from God, we are made up of the essence or a part of the spirit of God (Holy Spirit). So you can think in a sense that before we were conceived we were once one with God. Once we were born and took human form we became distinctly different, separate from God but we are from God. In that sense I believe that is what defines a Soul. — TheQuestion

That is contrary to the older Egyptian notion of the trinity of our souls. When we die part of that trinity, the physical part, becomes nonexistent.

Part of the trinity is judged and may enter the good life after death or not.

The Assessors of Maat were 42 minor ancient Egyptian deities of the Maat charged with judging the souls of the dead in the afterlife by joining the judgment of Osiris in the Weighing of the Heart.[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assessors_of_Maat — Wikipedia

Finally, the third part rejoins the source.
That is compatible with the native American notion of the Creator and returning to the source after death.

Christianity externalized the God spirit and made God the trinity.

You lost me on that one. I prefer attempting to imagine a past consciousness and what the Greek effort to understand the mysteries of math has to do with understanding the trinity. A train of thought different from all other people on earth at that time. And to understand the twisting of meaning when Jesus was said to be logos, the laws of nature.

And I like thinking about the difference between being the son of Zeus versus the Son of God. I wish others saw that as an exciting contrast worthy of discussion. As the Greek understanding of math and the laws of nature were different from all others, so is the Christian understanding of God, different from all others. I can not think of any other god that had a son without a woman. The sons of Zeus had real power on earth such as Hercules and Alexander the Great. A son that is a martyr and needs to be sacrificed to save human souls, is a different kind of god. We can not blame the Jews for not accepting that Christian reasoning. Not only is it a different way of understanding God, but it is also a different way of understanding humans.

Judaism holds that adherents do not need personal salvation as Christians believe. Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin.[7] Instead, they place a high value on individual morality as defined in the law of God—embodied in what Jews know as the Torah or The Law, given to Moses by God on biblical Mount Sinai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation — Wikipedia

Jews had a god-like all the other gods when people had patron gods. Patron gods had favorite people who they protected and the people with the most powerful god won wars. When Christians won wars pagans thought it meant they had the most powerful god. You know the jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing God, not the God of love Christians worship today. The Jewish notion of God is not a trinity.

Jesus promoted violating the law saying it was not God's law but human ideas of law. I agree it was human ideas of laws, but that does not make the Christian understanding of the trinity any better and twisting the understanding of the laws of nature to mean a deified Jesus is just wrong.

My guess is some people hate vegans for the same reason some people hate Jews. A claim to moral superiority and rejection of normal customs can come back as rejection.

↪Athena Y very w! And of course you are exactly correct. I offer/refer you to this site:
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.505183/page/n233/mode/2up
You should find yourself at pp. 221-222 (of the text itself) of a pdf of An Essay on Metaphysics. I point you to the paragraph starting, "Christian writers in the time of the Roman Empire asserted, and no historian today will deny,..." (p. 223 of the text). And to the end of the chapter, a few pages. Of course you can read the whole chapter. And chapter XXV, "Axioms of Intuition," (p. 248 of the text) I find very interesting.

The irony of their fighting over words and meanings and new understandings cannot have been lost on you. What a relief we do not do that today, especially here in TPF, this cloistered reserve of reason. Luc Ferry observes that the conversion of logos in 1 John 1 from a Greek principle of nature to being a man then living was an "intolerable deviance," :"a matter of life and death." (A Brief History of Thought, pp. 62-63.) And so it goes. — tim wood

Whoo, whoo you are doing it to me again! There is so much I do not know and getting through this ignorance to enlightenment is very challenging! There were so many unfamiliar concepts in what you gave me. The notion of self-differentiation is exciting and I recall number 3 has been very important in several early civilizations. There is a Chinese concept of "one, two, infinity". This would be math and metaphysics.

There is the monad, number 1, the un-undifferentiated whole. "The one Godhead, secret in all beings, all-pervading, the inner Self of all, presiding over all action, witness, conscious knower and absolute...the One in control over the many who are passive to Nature, fashions one seed in many ways." Swetaswatara Upanishad

Then the Dyad where the action begins. 'In the Two we experience the very essence bring to bind many together into one, to equate plurality and unity. Our mind divides the world into heaven and earth, day and night, light and darkness, right and lift, man and woman, I and you- and the more strongly we sense the separation between these poles, whatever they may be, the more powerfully do we also sense their unity." Karl Menninger

Then the Triad. "All was divided into three." Homer "The Triad has a special beauty and fairness beyond all numbers, primarily because it is the very first to make actual the potentialities of the Monad." Iamblichus

We use scales to symbolize justice because it balances two. All of this is more comprehensible with geometry and actually drawing the two overlapping circles and then connecting where the lines cross getting a triangle.

Where is the emotiocon and the melting brain running out of an ear? Like I think the explanation of the trinity needs an understanding of the math, but that is not what comes through the Bible. The explanation you gave me is clearly more than three men ruling together or three gods Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working together. Without coming to metaphysics through math, we are missing an understanding of the forces involved. Am I am making sense?

"The creative activity of God is the source of motion in the world of nature" (from your link) but did you ever hear this explanation in Sunday school or a church sermon? What you gave me opened a whole new way to understand the Trinity and I so regret that was never the subject in Sunday school.

"That nevertheless there are in this world many different realms, each composing of a class of things peculiar to itself...." and then religion runs off in fantastic imagination of another realm mixed up in a history of a small group of people who justify everything they do with a fanciful notion of a god's will and things get very contentious from here.

I really appreciate the information you shared about the Trinity. I would be more interested in attending a church that presents such information instead of lessons for being good children based on fiction instead of math and science.

At the moment of the big bang there was something. From that moment to the present a lot has changed. A measure of change involves a concept of time. When we look at the universe we see the past, because what we see is no longer as it was but only the traveling light of what was.

You made my day with that question. I had to gather information to explain my meaning and that lead to an enlightening experience as I realized the relationships between concepts I have long held. Merry Christmas to me, you gave me what I want most- enlightenment.

Perhaps my wording was not exacting enough. Three men are not equal to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one, not three. It is the nature of the one that is in question. How does the 3 become the 1?

I will quote from "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins.

THE NEW LANGUAGE OF GOD.

The Apllinarian crisis also showed how much of the controversy in the church arose from disputes over shades of language. By the end of the fourth century, theologians drew subtle yet critical differences between a number of words that earlier had been thrown around in far vaguer terms....
The most important terms are ousia, physis, hypostasis, and prosopon. — Philip Jenkins

Is that better? Rome and everyone understood 3 men. That is the problem in the Jesus Wars. There is the Father, and there is the Son, and there is the Spirit. Three separate gods! People were killing each other with this understanding of a separate Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because there is only one God! Okay, how do we make this right without the language for 3 being 1? Jews expected a savior, they were not expecting God himself. They still do not accept the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God. That begins as a language problem and becomes a science problem. How can the impossible be possible?

If Jesus is God, when did this happen? Was he born a God? Or did he become a God when he was baptized and the Holy Spirit entered him? Or, did he become God when he died? Greeks were okay with men being sons gods, but I don't think they took this too seriously. In Rome, a king had to die before becoming a God. First, we need the language to talk about these things, and then we need some scientific thinking to figure out how a man could be God. Not just any god, but the one and only God. Can we wrap our heads around these language/thinking problems and a different Roman and Greek understanding of the God issue? You know, Alexander the Great was the son of Zeus. That is not how the Romans understood such things.

Digging around for more clarification, the argument gets more and more interesting because it is tied to claims to power and land. Greeks gave up liner heritage and this led to the war against the Maccabees (a Jewish group).

"Apotheosis" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
The conquering Greeks were giving people jobs based on merit. The Jews found that intolerable because in their society everything was based on linage. Martin Luther and some Christians today, believe God determines who is born to rule and who is born to be a servant. Martin Luther thought God decided who is born to be a leader and who is born to serve. We come out of a Judo/Christian society that was very much determined by our lineage, not our merit.

Now look at the word "Divination" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

The term originally was used in Greco-Roman pagan society to venerate a ruler. It was inconceivable to Jewish piety. Yet, with time, it was adopted in Eastern Christianity by the Greek Fathers to describe spiritual transformation of a Christian. The change of human nature was understood by them as a consequence of a baptized person being incorporated into the Church as the Body of Christ. Divinization was thus developed within the context of incarnational theology. — Wikipedia

:rofl: That notion of being divine is a whole lot different from Zeus having sex with your mother. Thank you again for your question. :heart:

I read your article. So Jews would say the Trinity was pagan and although there is 3 in God there is not three persons? Is this how modern Jews see it?
— Gregory
I don't have enough personal experience with Jewish theology to answer that. — Gnomon

It is my understanding the Christians were killing each other during Contanople's time because of the debate of if God was three or one. This was a problem with language. Romans did not have a word for such a trinity but for the Greeks, who had a word for it, had no problem accepting such a trinity. It is my understanding Greek Jews were the first to write a Bible. Using the Greek language would make the trinity of God possible. So the answer to the question is what language were the Jews using. Also, the Romans created a word that made the trinity palatable to them.

Given today's reality, we are thrilled with a loving God, but our understanding of a loving God was not as it is today, until our bellies were full. Not that long ago God was jealous, revengeful, fearsome, and punishing the Satan had demons who could possess us. We are good with arguing the existence of God ignoring the reality of Satan and demons. Today's believers have a whole different understanding of God and Satan because the condition of our lives is so different.

Bottom line, what language are we using, and what is the condition of our lives that makes this or that believable.

Here is an interesting explanation of how concepts evolved to make the trinity of God palatable.

Doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper or intercessor in the power of the new life. — Britannica