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?

This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. We are not important to anything but ourselves, and that's enough. That's the way it should be. — T Clark

I like the Sumerian story that we are special to the earth because we were created by a goddess to help the river stay in its banks, so it does not flood and kill plants. I believe others also saw it as our purpose to take good care of the earth. We have the ability to create Eden but I don't think Eden looks like New York city.

Or there is Chardin's notion that God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We have a pool of consciousness that has grown a lot since the beginning of man. That consciousness is not physical yet it strongly affects our lives.

They exhibit self-organisation, homeostasis, the ability to reproduce, evolve and mutate, and heal from injury. — Wayfarer

Thank you. With that information, I could find more and this link supports your argument.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/what-life/#:~:text=Crystals%20can%20self%20replicate%20in,the%20species%20to%20be%20alive.

I made a statement of fact about what Darwin wrote in "Origin of Species." Any political interpretation is yours. — T Clark

I was just thinking out loud. Not drawing any firm conclusions except to recognize a political aspect to questions about what makes us as we are, besides being just a religion versus science issue.

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter — Wayfarer

This may not be the thread for my question, but I need to ask, how are living organisms fundamentally different from inanimate matter?

When I read "Origin of Species," I was surprised to see that Darwin included inheritance of acquired characteristics as a potential mechanism for evolution in addition to natural selection. — T Clark

You know this is a politically explosive issue right? It goes with a king's right to rule and slavery as a kindness to inferior humans. I think completely denying racial and class differences would be a hard stand to defend, on the other hand basing decisions on the science of inherited differences, is a very dangerous thing to do.

I think Greeks worked with a notion of individual difference and merit that is workable but then determining a person's merit is also a little problematic. Yikes, that is moving away from the notion of soul, but those considerations can make the notion of souls even more interesting.

Humans are very reactionary and their circumstances can shape them. Knowing advantaged people are shaped by their experience of advantage and things can happen to people like post-trauma syndrome and constant fear and insecurity and violence all around them can shape people differently, I find the notion of judging souls extremely unjust.

Could there ever be a unification between evolution and vitalism? — chiknsld

I think our soul can be explained with science and is best without religious or supernatural notions. For me, this is an ego issue. Are we part of the universal whole, or are we separated individuals that may or may not pass into the good life?

When speaking of Aristotle we might consider Socrates and his belief that we exist before being incarnated and know everything but forget what we know when we begin a new life. We could add concepts of reincarnation to our wondering about souls. I like the notion of reincarnation. But the following is more of a universal expression of being through science.

s a biological concept, the inheritance of acquired characteristics has had a wild roller coaster ride over the past two centuries. Championed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck at the beginning of the 19th century, it soared to widespread popularity as a theory of inheritance and an explanation for evolution, enduring even after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Then experimental tests, the rise of Mendelian genetics, and the wealth of discoveries substantiating chromosomal DNA as the principal medium of genetic information in complex organisms all but buried the idea until the mid-20th century. Since then, the theory has found at least a limited new respectability with the rise of “epigenetics” (literally, around or on top of genetics) as an explanation for some inherited traits.

Most recently, some researchers have found evidence that even some learned behaviors and physiological responses can be epigenetically inherited. None of the new studies fully address exactly how information learned or acquired in the somatic tissues is communicated and incorporated into the germline. But mechanisms centering around small RNA molecules and forms of hormonal communication are actively being investigated. — Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

I am amazed by how prejudiced my mind is. I was not always so prejudiced against revealed religion. I got here because there was a time when I thought I was possessed and being controlled by Satan and seemed to have a choice of either maintaining that belief and doing something terrible or not believing that line of reasoning. If there is no Satan and no demons, I am totally accountable for what I do. I am very glad I chose against that superstition. How can such a religion be anything but superstition because totally reliant on believing in supernatural beings? Without those supernatural beings, there is no religion.

However, before science how would we understand good and evil without believing in supernatural powers? From this window of thought, I can almost think believing the Biblical explanation of life makes sense. The foundation of thinking was not science. Today we can know what I experienced was post-trauma syndrome resulting from a medical procedure done to me before I was verbal and could understand the reasoning behind what was done to me. The preverbal child knew the world through feelings. Beings felt good or bad and there is no reasoning to explain why things feel good or bad.

So back to the subject of good becoming a terrible evil, a romantic idea of Utopia leading to pain and war and killing others. The intentions are good, and good might come out of the imagined good, but there is a fault in the reasoning. I think Aristotle explored this problem with reason? Poor information leading to bad reasoning.

Their conception of the "laws of nature" is connected with the divine laws (god given rights). — L'éléphant

:yikes: Perhaps it is my prejudice that makes it impossible for me to understand how religious notions have anything to do with the laws of nature? The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. We see this opposing view in Hyprocrate's rejection of the belief that the gods cause our physical conditions. At least since Heraclitus and his conception of the cosmos as interacting forces, there was an argument against the gods being in control. Laws of nature and religion are separate belief systems. Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same.

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power. — L'éléphant

On really? That is interesting. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived 300 years so we had time to learn more? That is assuming our bodies would not age. 300 years in the old body I have now would not be fun. But how we come to see things differently over time is amazing and the perspective of history is so helpful in making sense of it all.

The image of the noble savage is surely a romantic notion and there has repeatedly been the concern of civilization corrupting humans. I am most familiar with Locke's understanding of human nature and natural law. While I am aware of religious notions that justified the monarchy and aristocracy, I don't know of it having a connection with laws of nature? I have a notion of Christianity thinking the laws of God are high above the laws of nature and a God decides who will rule and who will serve. That notion goes against the laws of nature, doesn't it? I take issue with Christians because I see the religion as opposed to science and the laws of nature. The culture Christianity gave Europe was no better than the class society of Hindu India.

I had to look for an answer to the question stimulated by @L'éléphant and pulled from @Shwah comment about Rousseau :chin: and got this explanation from google search.... I am underlining the sentence that got my attention.

The Social Contract is reinterpreted by emphasizing its relation to Rousseau's other writings and doctrines. In the spirit of Hobbesian realism, Rousseau regards natural law and other forms of “private morality” as ineffectual, invalid, and in practice dangerous tools of oppression and subversion. But, still more realistic than Hobbes, Rousseau thinks it impossible to build a nonoppressive state on men's selfish interests alone and embraces the classical view that morality or virtue is politically necessary (as well as intrinsically good). Rousseau's doctrine of the natural goodness of man, however, which traces all vice to the effects of oppression, leads him to conclude that the non-oppression more or less guaranteed by the absolute rule of general laws is also sufficient to make men virtuous. Thus Rousseau can declare law as such (General Will) infallible and “sovereign”—and he must do so in order to protect rule of law from its greatest danger, the subversive appeal to “natural law.” — Arthur M. Melzer

Okay, what is going on with Hitler, Trump and Putin? I had a Christian friend who almost swooned when she said he was a being a wonderful Father to our nation. I was shocked when no matter how terrible the news was she continued to think very highly of him. Trump began his climb to popularity with WrestleMania where he participated in the show with the brutality that makes the show popular. It is hard for me to imagine anyone not believing he is a liar and that is a complete violation of human decency but he is so popular there is serious speculation he will run for president again. Putin is appealing to his people who want to believe he is a great leader. Hitler had a large following. Socrates was angry about Athens's war with Sparta and blamed democracy for that. How does this reality fit with what Rousseau held to be true?

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain?

There is no culture without a means of transmitting the culture and right now we have nothing transmitting a culture of high morality, so there is no General Will that can protect us.

You probably won't believe me if I say you can train your emotion to be "callous" but benevolent. But it would require you to detach yourself from identifying (self-identity) with what you do -- be it employment or hobby or a membership to a club. In short, you relax your views on things and always think of walking away. (I only hold jobs that I know I could walk away from when shit hits the fan and monkey wrench thrown in for good measure. Life is too short for arts, music, games, and parties). — L'éléphant

I am aware of Buddhist detachment but I am not in favor of it. I want to have a sense of purpose and the people I admired most are the ones who make a difference. I think being an informed and cultured person is important. But so did Hitler. What is the trick? Is there some way we can know a person will be benevolent and not an evil everyone will regret?

Lol. This sounds like news pundits. I don't get the "ignore list" -- I click on new posts I'm interested in. And if the posts happened to be nonsense, I just don't react to them. So I don't have an ignore list. — L'éléphant

:lol: It is an emotional self-control problem and why I question if our good intentions can lead to a terrible tyranny. Mothers can be very "nice people" with ever good intentions and absolutely terrible tyrants with their children! We need to stop thinking of tyrants as bad people because good people with good intentions can be tyrants, and that is how we come to this thread. My saving grace is awareness of my faults and learning to live graciously as a less-than-perfect human being is a challenge.

To clarify, I don't like how the things some people say make me feel and I don't like the way I react to them, so I resolve this problem by making it impossible for me to see what they said. I am working on myself to be less emotional and more rational like some of the Asian men I have met. I don't know if it is in their genes or comes from their culture, but I love how reticent they can be. I think some people hold ideas that make them more sane. I am not sure why I am so emotionally responsive but I would like to change that. And here again, is the question of Romanticism leading to trouble. Like Hitler had good intentions but those good intentions were tied to emotions that led to terrible things.

Democracy, whatever it is, seems to provide the right kinda environment for healing of a society (people can vent their frustrations. Important! Talk things out in a civilized manner. Etc.). One could perhaps look at democracy as a sanitarium of some kind for society to convalesce in). :smile: — Agent Smith

That is the ideal, but because of rhetoric and ignorance and I want to say youth, we do not achieve that ideal. Socrates blamed Athens's democracy for the war with Sparta that it lost. That led to his student Plato writing of a Republic where decisions are made by philosophers, not everyone, and later even forefathers of the United States opposed too much democracy. The US has a limited democracy because its form of government is a Republic that is closer to Plato's rule by a chosen few. And here is where we get into trouble. Communism can be compared to Plato's Republic. Communism began with slaughtering people to impose the rule of communism.

Yes but it's rousseau's general will which underlines romanticism and the wars like naziism, marxism etc — Shwah

Oh my goodness, you wrote exactly what I was thinking about just a minute ago! This is so exciting! Please say more. I am not that familiar with Rousseau and have a burning desire to know more. What is this "general will"? How is it affected and can steps such as training for independent thinking and good manners, and insisting on media principles such as presenting both sides, curb the possible destructive nature of the general will?

Thank you for these passages. The Petrarch one is what I had in mind about renaissance. Your comments are on point. — L'éléphant

That makes me happy. To me, it means, by good reasoning, we can make things better, but now I have to ask an old Greek question. How many people make a democracy possible and does a democracy become impossible when there are too many people? Oh, oh I love this. We survive the complexity of our cities by taking thinking shortcuts, prejudices, and generalizing. That means we are not really thinking 90% of the time but are reacting. We would not have enough energy to get through the day if we were actually thinking everything threw. Especially in very large populations, we must protect ourselves by not getting too involved with others. Now you can have a wave of action, such as going to war because our social nature can overrule our capability of good reasoning. When everyone is emotionally geared for war, it is a really bad idea to say "I don't think this is a good ideal." Especially not when people are not trained for independent thinking and good manners.

I bet that you tell that to everyone in every forum you visit! :smile: — Agent Smith

Absolutely not! I would not complement the people here if good thinking and good manners were common. In one forum I have at least 1/2 the active members on my ignore list and I finally stopped being active in the forum because the members argue as badly as bored kids in the back seat of a car. Commonly there is no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. :worry: And no understanding of what good manners have to do with good discussions and all this troubles me deeply because that means a poor understanding of democracy. Which can bring us to the topic of this thread.

Democracy is built on the belief that we are political animals by nature and that we are capable of good reasoning, there, we are capable of good government and lifting the human potential. However, from time to time people enter wars believing they are fighting for the good. What started this discussion is someone questioned if Romanticism lead to the worst human tragedies such as we saw in world wars and communist take over of Russia and China. America is struggling with its own identity right now because so many people regret slavery, the destruction of native American people, and some of our own war activity. People are opinionated and are ready to kill but is their thinking well founded in facts? I think I have concern that Romanticism is not well-grounded in facts and their good intentions, but bad reasoning, can lead to human tragedy?

I'm not sure I understand this point. Please clarify as to your reaction to what I said regarding the change in wisdom.
My point in my previous post was: the enlightenment happened. Now it's our task to examine what lasting effects did enlightenment provide? Because you seem to say we should bring back the enlightenment -- it isn't an organization or an institution that could be established again. And why do we need to bring it back? It doesn't look like it had a lasting effect if we're still unhappy with the state of affairs.

The renaissance -- you're thinking that the search for scholastic knowledge, rediscovering of the ancients writings, and other arts and politics ideas are sought or willingly craved by the greater population. No. It didn't work that way. The thinkers, the historians, the scholars were the ones. They were what they were before the renaissance and because of that, this renaissance thinking happened. — L'éléphant

Oh my goodness we have different sources of information. My sources of information say a very deliberate effort was made to regain past knowledge. My source of information is college lectures but I found a link on the internet that is useful. The lecture focused more on the Italian reasons for pursuing documents translated by Petrarch. That is a memory of the glory of Rome, and I need to have cosmopolitan solutions to Italy's cities that were growing because of increased trading. Agarainian Europe with no trade was not as motivated in the beginning because the church met their needs.

More specifically, famous Italian Renaissance scholar and humanist Petrarch (also known as Francesco Petrarca) is remembered for rediscovering the earlier work of Roman philosopher Cicero. Cicero was born in Italy in 106 BC and died in 43 BC. He is regarded as one of the most masterful writers of his time and the Latin language. Petrarch’s rediscovery in the 14th century of Cicero’s letters is considered to be the spark of the Italian Renaissance and inspired other European scholars to do the same and look to ancient texts. Petrarch considered the ideas present in Cicero’s and other ancient texts as superior to the ideas present in Europe at the time of the Middle Ages. As well, Petrarch is considered to be the founder of the humanist movement during the Renaissance.
Petrarch
Petrarch Portrait from the mid-1400s.
In general, Renaissance Humanism was the study of ancient Greek and Roman texts with the goal of promoting new norms and values in society. These norms and views varied from those at the time because they focused less heavily on a religious worldview. Instead, Renaissance humanists such as Petrarch use ancient texts to promote a worldview based on logic and reason. — History Crunch

An organization that did advance ancient mysticism and knowledge were the Masons.

Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that arose from obscure origins (theorised to be anywhere from the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple to the mid-1600s). Freemasonry now exists in various forms all over the world, and has millions of members. The various forms all share moral and metaphysical ideals, which include, in most cases, a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.[1]

The fraternity is administratively organised into Grand Lodges (or sometimes Orients), each of which governs its own jurisdiction, which consists of subordinate (or constituent) Lodges. Grand Lodges recognise each other through a process of landmarks and regularity. There are also appendant bodies, which are organisations related to the main branch of Freemasonry, but with their own independent administration.

Freemasonry uses the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what has been described as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."[2] — mystic

Public schools in the US were about liberal education based on the Greek and Roman classics and they advanced humanism along with an understanding of democracy that is dependent on literacy in Greek and Roman classics. I think such education can prevent Romanticism from becoming a tyranny or a war machine because of its focus on the individual as an authority while promoting the welfare of all. This follows from Aristotle and the notion that every species has a purpose and it is the human purpose to reason and this goes with notions of being political animals. It includes Cicero and the ideas about right reason. Philosophy gives us a totally different way of searching truth than the religions of revelation. The Bible is about a kingdom, not democracy and it is about believing, not reasoning.

I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.
It's been written that the causes of the age of enlightenment happened in small advances in science and other field of studies, until it became a movement and reached wider audience. — L'éléphant

I did not expect anyone to accept a gerontological explanation unless they were old enough to have experienced it. Are you arguing our brains do not change as we age leading to greater wisdom with age? Of course, if a person never reads and never engages in philosophical discussions those thinking neurons do not grow and that wisdom would be very limited. But for those few who have a love of knowledge and live past 70 and 80, something awesome happens. They are no longer thinking like the warrior they once were. Now you get Socrates' arguments about justice and what is good. He has pondered those notions for many years and now people want to hear what he has to say. What he ponders is slightly different from the young man obsessed with his body, his sex life, and competition with his peers.

Not until the renaissance, printing press, and knowledge of making paper did a growing middle class have access to the ancient Roman and Greek thoughts that became the foundation for philosophy in Europe. The church developed scholasticism centered on Plato and Aristotle creating a market for the ancient books. Later, Bacon blew the door to knowledge wide open with abductive reasoning and we enter the modern age with scientific thinking. The industrial age was made possible in part by perspective art because now pictures of the plans for making machines could look three-dimensional and these pictures put in books spread the industrial technology rapidly.

thought to have been devised about 1415 by Italian Renaissance architect Filippo Brunelleschi and later documented by architect and writer Leon Battista Alberti in 1435 (Della Pittura). Linear perspective was likely evident to artists and architects in the ancient Greek and Roman periods, but no records exist from that time, and the practice was thus lost until the 15th century — Naomi Blumberg

I think what we must consider is the ingredients of thought. Why did the Renaissance spread from Italy? Because they still had ancient documents and a memory of the glory of Rome. Because they had metropolitan cities and sought the old documents that provided solutions to metropolitan problems. This was not so for the whole of Europe where besides a few technological skills passed on from generation to generation, people were relatively isolated in rural agrarian communities, the only source of information was the church that was commented to the past and saving souls for God and heaven. They were told not to be worldly and they were not intellectually stimulated until church-controlled scholasticism gave them Aristotle. And they died young.

So why were the Romans and Greeks different? There was a time when the Greeks were thought to be a race of genius and there is some excitement about questioning why they were different. Roman advanced concepts of universals and law, but they began by imitating Athens. I am saying this to compare it to living on a landlord's land and trying to exist by farming when it was not advanced and there were no books, no trade routes, nothing to stimulate their imaginations of what could be. The ingredients for thought and imagination did not exist in most of Europe before the Renaissance.

Why do we keep on praying for enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to ask for this now as we do have these things in our society. — L'éléphant

How about young people can not be enlightened as we are enlightened in our later years. How well we understand meanings is a matter of brain organization and that changes as we age. The difference between learning something and knowing the facts; and getting the bigger meaning, a kind of gestalt, probably needs to be experienced before it can be known. Because in our later years the neurons in our brains have grown and new connections are made that are not made when we are young.

When we are young we pick up new facts easier but we have more of a dictionary understanding of words. This is more so before the age of 8. Around age 8 the sheath around our neurons is complete and we become more discriminating and start questioning what we are told. Around age 25 we experience another change in our brains but our personality does not become solidified until around age 30. Later in life, all the facts and memories begin making new connections, and learning something new gets harder, like a broad river flows slower, but we can have an enlightenment experience that we don't have when we are younger. I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened.

Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air. — L'éléphant

Yes and no doubt because we understand the nature/science behind many common-sense notions we can believe common sense is reasoning equal to scientific reasoning. This is close to believing the Bible is God's truth and a better source of truth than science. Both common sense and God's truth, beliefs, can lead us to trouble when we think the reasoning is equal to scientific reasoning. The pandemic has made some of us very aware of that problem.

Interestingly as some brought out in this thread, reasoning without emotions can also be problematic! The nuclear bomb may have ended the war between the US and Japan sooner and saved thousands of lives, but who does not wish that never happened and therefore we do not live in fear of nuclear war? The US used cluster bombs on Iraq and now we hear in the news that cluster bombs are against the rules for war. Emotion plays an important part in our decision-making. That was the theme of a few Star Trek shows when Kirk was the Captain of the Enterprise.

I feel passionate about what the values of what the Enlightenment can do for us and the enlightenment as I understand it is about what reason can do for us. The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too.

When I think of Enlightenment, I think of reason. When I think of Romanticism, I think of feelings and ideals. Maybe I've got that wrong.
— T Clark

Combine all three, and that's Romanticism. If you've read Les Miserables, that's pinnacle Romanticism. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for those comments. That is what makes Romanticism something to discuss as it looks different from different points of view. Personally, I have strong feelings about the ideals. But then I think math and science are sexy. The power of knowledge can be thrilling and is much more hopeful than a pessimistic religion about Satan. demons, and sinners.

The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. — L'éléphant

You did not watch the explanation of fast and slow thinking. There can be a big problem with believing common sense is good thinking. The video makes that very clear and it is information I wish everyone shared. A friend used to have a sign on her door saying, "Just because you think it is true, does not mean it is true." Scientific thinking questions the truth of what we believe. Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time.

The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage? — L'éléphant

Oh yes, I am of that mindset. Once in a while reality seems to dampen my romanticism and I have to work harder at believing what I want to believe.

this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist.
— schopenhauer1

PS that kind of thinking put in in Hades for a very long time. :chin:

I'd say there is a difference between romanticising enlightenment and rationalising romanticism. :razz: — Tom Storm

I love :heart: that statement. This forum is so much better than most forums because the people here can see the subtle differences and see things from different points of view. How can we educate for this?

That is a more personal view of romance than the op was considering. The original consideration was war for ideologies such as the violence during Hitler's time, or the violent take over of the soviet union and Communist China. A fact is when Russia agreed to tear down the wall separating Germany, it was agreed NATO would not move East. That is documented but it was not the wording of a formally signed agreement. So the argument goes those negotiating with Gorbachev did say NATO would not expand east, but that doesn't matter because those exact words were not put in the signed agreement. That is a technicality that I consider highly unethical. But now for the Romanticism....

We have another agreement problem.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was suddenly left with the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. So it, the United States and Russia reached an agreement in 1994, known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, by which Ukraine would turn over its nukes in exchange for those security assurances. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/ — Washington Post

Russian media is controlled and claiming the west is violating the NATO agreement, and so is US media controlled but fortunately less so, and it is not mentioning the verbal agreement but is insisting Putin is just nuts. If we think of this in terms of people filing for a divorce we can see the romantic notions of who is being wronged and who is committing the wrong. The leaders of both countries, the US and Russia are building different understandings of reality that make it appear their side is in the right and the side is in the wrong. This happens with all wars.

We all like to see ourselves as in the right and defending what is good. This is essential to people being willing to put their lives on the line and willing to pay for the weapons of war. Trusting our leaders to do the right thing, is perhaps a very romantic notion. Looking into the Ukraine problem, I see the Israel problem of multiple agreements made depending on who is being manipulated the Jews or the Arabs. Opposing sides were led to have very different expectations, and the violence continues as people struggle to defend themselves. Having blind faith in our leaders is romantic. We need to demand full discloser of negotiations. Not just what does the official signed agreement say, but what was said to get everyone to sign?

Number one, we all need to understand what a fact is. Number two we have to hook up people from around the world with internet forums and where we all can keep our leaders honest and ethical. My romantic notion is we can have rule by reason but we can not depend on our leaders unless we can know what they are doing and pay attention!

As I understand it, the Enlightenment was all about rationalism order and secularism - Romanticism was specifically a reaction against these strictures, a project wanting to restore emotion, spontaneity, subjectivity and enchanted thinking. — Tom Storm

It is all rather complex and I regret my limited time to respond to people.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, and glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical.[1] It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[2] the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.[3] It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography,[4] education,[5] chess, social sciences, and the natural sciences.[6] It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing conservatism, liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism.[7]

The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as fear, horror and terror, and awe — especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublime and beauty of nature.[8][9] It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, but also spontaneity as a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu). In contrast to the Rationalism and Classicism of the Enlightenment, Romanticism revived medievalism[10] and elements of art and narrative perceived as authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, early urban sprawl, and industrialism. — wikipedia

However, the futurist dream of the enlightenment was to raise the human potential and resolve all our problems with reason. Democracy being rule by reason and made possible with universal education. The pursuit of happiness meant gaining knowledge. This is a huge contrast from believing we were kicked out of Eden and cursed and doomed to be miserable creatures unless saved by a supernational power and therefore we must we live under the authority a God who gives us to rule over us. This God deciding who will be masters and who will be servants. Our liberty from that is pretty romantic, isn't it? I suspect we don't understand things this way because of the Christian influence and enlightenment and Christianity oppose each other.

We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles. — L'éléphant

Yes, we should think scientific thinking is logical and the examples you gave and not.
We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking and voting with the same lack of thinking or deciding not to wear a mask or get a vaccination without thinking things threw is problematic. Romantic thinking is not really thinking either.

Here is a short and simple video about the good and bad of that kind of thinking.

You romanticize the reason for war. War is over gold. Look deep enough, and its over something. — Hanover

What else?

Science is part of the state of affairs. — L'éléphant

Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking.

What do you think of society's way of relating with others? You talk about a sort of pseudo-homesteading that you did in Oregon. If we are not talking about a cultish-commune type society, I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. EVEN in just these very "typical" circumstances, people can have a hard time in almost every one of those processes.... everything from sustaining a good job, finding a partner, and living some ideal life of perfect harmony where one has a clockwork routine of baking pies and making furniture, while the kids are helping churn the butter, and helping cultivate the garden.. Ya know it's just like the Hobbits or something, right? It all works out, and everyone's needs are met in perfect harmony :roll:. That image indeed is its own romanticism.. It is the pull for Tolkien's world, for fantasy idealism. — schopenhauer1

I have 1950 values. Ideally, until the children are old enough, women do not work outside of the home but make an important economic contribution to the family with their domestic skills. I am not sure that is just romanticism. In fact, it is very much about duty, not just to the family, but to the whole community. This is very much about defending our democracy and not becoming reliant on the state.

Personally, I am not so much patriotic as I identify myself with women around the world. All mothers share a lot in common and we need to stand united. I lived for my children and Demeter was my archetype until my children grew up and I shifted to an Athena archetype, identified with Athens and Roman, not exactly the US. I suppose there is a lot of romanticism in my thinking and feelings, but also a lot of philosophy and study of human nature from the point of view of many disciplines, from anthropology and zoology to geology and economics. And I am thinking about all this as I write, wondering what I think about what I think, and what thought might come up next?

I brought up the question about Romanticism because of the youtube I watched and the question of if it is behind dreams of utopia that turn into nightmares. I still am not sure what I think but I think unless a person is insane we all act on good intentions and the best way to avoid trouble is to be as aware as we can be about the world we live in and why we think what we think. :chin: Socrates was not right about all things, but for sure, the more we know, the more we know we do not know.

Well, you should know my stance on procreation by now, Athena. — schopenhauer1

Please, don't expect me to remember anything. I have not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's yet, but I am struggling to just live in the present. :lol: I hope I remember to get back to you. I have to leave for work right now. :lol: Perhaps I should do better notes so I can keep everyone straight and remember what I intend to do when I have the time.

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values. — T Clark

How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values?