I can't make my meaning any plainer or clearer. Read the Stoics — 180 Proof

I am a hedonist. :grin: I believe in the pursuit of happiness as Cicero and Jefferson understood it.

Being reluctantly accepting of everything is painful.
Being neutrally accepting of everything is emotionally pointless.
Being cheerfully or gratefully accepting of everything is an end in itself. Inherently "good" in that it feels good, may be good for one's health, and may be contagious. Further, its easier to be accepting when your feeling gratitude. — Yohan

Would you please explain that to my granddaughter who appears to be making her life hell by her very sour outlook? It seems common for the young to be defensive and unaccepting of what an older person says. It seems many are trapped in pain, instead of realizing the miracle of being grateful. I think we need to learn how to be happy. In some cultures, this may be easier or than in other cultures? I think this is something worth looking into.

Being overly materialistic might be harmful? By materialistic I mean the opposite of animistic. Believing people, places, and things make us happy or unhappy, rather than realizing the importance of attitude.

How about data, information, and knowledge are various parts of a car, while wisdom is the one that steers the car? One actually has to practice driving to get good at it. Reading about cars, roads, and driving isn't enough — Yohan

I like that.

I am having a social problem. It is a lifelong social problem. I am no good at making small talk. I have no interest in engaging in small talk. When I was young, my mother was worried about my lack of desire to be popular. Years later I would rather be in the forum, than socializing with my neighbors. So I don't think wisdom comes naturally. I think we need to need to think about what we think to develop wisdom. I don't think most people think about what they think. And when I began reading philosophy, I was blown away by the questions philosophers have asked!

And I have known some very smart men. Men capable of earning a lot of money because of how smart they are but that doesn't make them wise. In contrast, is people who have traveled and experienced other cultures. Now those people I envy because of what they have learned of other cultures and life. I hobo can be more fun to talk with than some very smart guys.

If everybody had to be attacked by a lion to know lions are dangerous, we would have a world full of amputees, severely scarred people, not to mention very well-fed lions. With IQ, vicarious learning is possible, greatly increasing the odds of survival and, if you've mastered the art of learning from the bad experiences of others, a good life. With experience, you'll learn all right but, as people have told me n number of times, the hard way. — TheMadFool

Wow, maybe our wisdom is dependent on our teachers? I don't think in the west we pay much attention to wisdom? In the US we have much reliance on religion, but I don't think that equals wisdom. Some people get wisdom from the bible but not many.

I am glad I am smart enough to avoid lions and meth, but I am also old enough to know it seems almost impossible to pass on wisdom. Plenty of parents have pleaded with their children to learn from their parent's mistakes and don't repeat them. It would be super if people avoided drugs and stupid behaviors, as easily as they decide to avoid lions. What prevents people from being wise enough to learn from others?

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning. — Corvus

What we see depends on our ability to see. In your gut, what is guiding what you can see and what you can not see?

Why did you take out your sword to cut someone to ribbons? In the long run, such behavior can lead to wars. This is really crazy when it is holy wars fought over something many of us do not believe is true because we think the god stories they believe are more fiction than truth. Sometimes the behavior is even more important than what people are fighting over.

Sometimes it seems as if the notion of individual perspectives and views is becoming lost. Of course, it is important to get accurate knowledge but, even then, each person has to think about it on a personal level. Even though there is so much information about everything, it is likely that each person thinks a little bit differently, putting ideas together, interpreting and forming conclusions. Also, the basis of beliefs and understanding is likely to be connected with personal experiences and life experiences play an important role in the modification of beliefs. I am sure that this includes attitudes and the whole mindset from which our ideas evolve. — Jack Cummins

It is not just our beliefs that matter, but also how we conduct ourselves and manage our arguments.

I always enjoy your threads and I don't think you have ever turned an argument into a personal attack.

Some interesting things have been said here but I am totally distracted by the personal attacks.

I come to the forum to have the pleasure of questioning our notions of truth, including my own, but when people are attacking each other and being defensive, it is not pleasant. They are not creating space for "individual perspectives and views" and I love the way you always do that! :heart:

It's important to determine what it is we're referring to when we speak of "truth." If the question is whether water is wet, I doubt that anyone adheres to a "point of view" which would induce them to claim it is not wet, and if a person would make such a claim I think we would be justified in saying that person is wrong. If a Nazi claims that Jews sacrifice Gentile children as part of their religious rituals and drink their blood, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that claim is a "possible truth that could be valid."

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism.
— Athena

Based on what he writes in his Republic, Plato might be described as the totalitarian's best friend. He more than anyone I know of championed government control of every aspect of our lives (for our own good, as every totalitarian claims). — Ciceronianus

Okay, what is a good way to classify our truths (a word) so we can label those truths in conversation as different kinds of truth? For example, the scientific reason for taking the covid vaccine is very different from believing a vaccine is a political matter an attempt of the government to control us for no other reason than to have control or win votes. If our language had a better way of classifying truths than "nonsense" or "truth" might it be possible for us to be more rational?

[quote=I like sushi[/quote] Your post really got me to thinking. How would that argument be different in the east? Science versus conspiracy theory?

I did not expect this to come up but now I see a linguistic aspect of our arguments. And the Arab Muslim people can be extremely argumentative. I had joined one of their forums and was blown away by how intense their arguing was and this has to be related to our words and notions of truth and perhaps notions of what is manly?

↪Athena If you mean people in the East don't care as much about material wealth and such you're dead wrong. I'd say more so. There is generally a big difference between poor and rich and this is probably a big cause.

In terms of language, there is evidence that people who speak western languages are not as likely to pay attention to details when shown a picture of a fish tank. They see a fish tank, whilst if you ask someone from China/Vietnam they will list the items in the fish tank rather than view it as a just a fish tank.

Note: This study was done on adults not children. It may have something to do with education but language is probably tied in there somewhere.

If you recall I've mentioned before that motherese is different for different languages. Notably Korean, where children are taught to focus on prepositions rather than objects. The effect of this is negligible beyond the age of 4-5 yrs. Prior to that point Korean children will generally perform better at special tasks/puzzles where other children will perform better at category problems. — I like sushi

I understand being materialistic as believing all things are matter. As opposed to believing in the gods or animism. It would be the western focus on nouns.

I would like to know more about the cultural differences you mentioned. If I were younger and had money, I would go the east and do my best to absorb the cultural difference. Thank you for sharing.

I do not know for sure but I think the west is more materialist than the east because of language differences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

School of hard knocks, not everyone wants to go there. — TheMadFool

I am not sure what you mean by that. My mother thought children were naturally wise and she influenced me to value wisdom. I think that my choice to have wisdom lead to experiencing much adversity? Kind of like a Native American proverb I once heard of wanting specific characteristics and getting the life lessons that strengthen them.

I think memory is important to intelligence and I never had a good memory! It took me forever to memorize the alphabet, days of the week, months of year, etc. and I have never memorized the times' table despite making a lot of effort to do so. Because math is so useful in knowing our world and having good logic, I greatly regret I seem to be no more capable of understanding math than I am capable of flying.

Intelligence and wisdom are two different ways of being smart. The way I've heard them being described is like this, if you feel wet drops on your arm intelligence tells you its raining and wisdom tells you to go inside
— HardWorker
This suggests that every person that goes inside when it starts raining is wise.
An obviously false conjecture.
I will now assume that your definition.
So change the definition.
I honestly don't understand either so I will try to prove you wrong but I can't add anything thing else. — I love Chom-choms

I want to jump in because I think,I love Cham-choms, is correct. I had a friend with a low IQ who had the smarts of an animal (I envied him for this) and wisdom. It was like he had the clarity of mind that Yohan mentioned. Some of us have so much chatter going on in our heads, we are not really present and do not see the obvious.

Refine data so that makes sense? = information
Organize information into a comprehensive map of reality= knowledge
When enough diverse knowledge is obtained, the opposites of perspectives cancel out resulting in emptiness of opposition, and one obtains poised equilibrium resulting in behavior that is in Buddhism called the 'middle way' and in Christianity 'straight and narrow' = wisdom? — Yohan

The first part of the transformation of data to information and knowledge makes sense to me, but the last phase does not make sense to me. It sure does not happen naturally.

If you ask me, a high IQ eliminates the need for experience and vice versa. Of course, we would be better off having the best of both worlds but if given a choice, I'd opt for IQ instead of experience: as Yohan put it in a thread on life advice which has been deleted, "learn from other's nistakes". — TheMadFool

Well, when it comes to a high IQ I will never achieve that and I have known people with a lower IQ than mine who are pretty wise.

Data→Information→Knowledge→WisdomData→Information→Knowledge→Wisdom
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

What do the arrows represent? Anyone? — TheMadFool

No progress can be made without thinking and experience is essential to get from knowledge to wisdom.
A high IQ and book learning doesn't equal wisdom. We need the experience to understand the meaning of all that knowledge.

Zeus was afraid once man had the technology of fire he would discover all other technologies and then forget the gods. I think that is technology without wisdom.

I think it very likely that the Founders of our Great Republic, and most of the citizens of ancient Athens, including Solon and Pericles, Plato and Aristotle (while he was there), and maybe even Demosthenes, demagogue though he was, would disagree with the claim that there are "many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view."

But if there are many possible truths which could be valid, who can say? No doubt the Nazis acted consistent with the truth according to their own view of truth. — Ciceronianus

An interesting and important question, I have a very old logic book that explains we can never know enough to believe we know what we know without a doubt. I think there are some things we can be more sure of than others. I think we can agree water is wet. However, we may not agree on what is the best news program.

The Greeks begin with many gods who argued until they had an agreement on the best reasoning. This led to the philosophers' notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe that not even the gods could violate. If there were only one truth, there would be no point in having a democracy. A ruler could know the truth and rule much more efficiently than when a bunch of people get involved with the decision-making.

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism. Pericles' funeral speech favors individual differences and shared responsibility.

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

My set of old grade school textbooks seems to copy Pericles' speech when listing the characteristics of democracy. In the US we are having a cultural conflict between authoritarianism and liberalism, independence as opposed to dependence; with our values so twisted into knots, we seem to be reactionary instead of rational. But hey, when my phone is giving me a bad time, it is hard to not fix it with a hammer. :grimace:

This the trap that language sets for us all, that all of us fall into even four times before breakfast. Of course you did not mean exactly what you exactly said, but usually folks understand. The trouble arises when they don't, or happen to be suffering from translation fatigue. An occupational hazard for parents, mothers in particular with their sons. — tim wood

Oh my goodness YES! And people can get so UPSET because someone said the wrong thing! In my later years when I have the luxury of giving a thought my complete focus, and a lot of experience, I can occasionally be thrilled by how well I said something. :lol: I know this is unusual but I have spent much of my life feeling misunderstood. Come to think of it, I am not sure why I am complaining so much about computers. It can be just as difficult dealing with humans as it is to deal with a computer, but I have a preference for humans, even though that may be irrational. But not all humans. :lol: There are some humans I go out of my way to avoid.

So far as spellcheck goes, it's just an imperfect tool; one still has to proofread. I proofread my writing here, and still find errors after I post, which I then edit. — tim wood

Years ago when I excitedly plugged into the internet, I decided computers are far from smart! We need human beings we can call because they can resolve our problems in ways the computer can not. Whenever I have the choice of doing business with a company that answers the phone with a human being, instead of a computerized program, I choose the human being.

When people started using answering machines and phone trees, there was the option to wait until a human being picked up the phone. We have lost that choice, and unless my life depends on completing a communication, the people I am calling loose my business. I will also stand in the long checkout line instead of the self-check line because I rather share this world with humans than with machines. Have you seen the movie Passengers?

Perhaps your spell check is on to something - when it comes to this world, there may be only one truth that is undifferentiable from any other such that when we believe in truth about "our world" we are of necessity believing "the truth" about the Great Fact. — Ennui Elucidator

I do not think that is so. Each of us has a different experience of reality. So when I told my son to be careful because what he was about to pick up was heavy, he lifted the object and said it was not heavy for him. I love that acceptance of us having different truths. His statement acknowledged the object was heavy for me.

The other extreme is the person who appears to believe he knows everything that is important to know when in truth he knows only his own limited experience of life, and from there he judges everyone else. Believing there is one truth is problematic.

All rescued by noting that there is "true" and "truth." True the particular, and truth the generalization. And all that can be said of truth is just that it is a generalization, abstract, and thus itself empty, referring back to the particular, which is itself unique to its own case. But Aristotle covered this in opposing to the either-or, his neither-nor.

As to many possible truths, the qualification of different POVs essential, leaving truth untouched, but the several trues in question, the true then contingent on the trueness of the particular POV, in consideration of which it may be altogether untrue. — tim wood

That was some pretty fancy step dancing. I love "True the particular, and truth the generalization." That is much better than "the truth". I think culturally we need to work on your understanding so it is a shared understanding. But can we get there with the rules spell check follows? It is not just with the word truth, but commonly generalized meanings are missed by spell check. So if we write of government it wants us to speak of the particular, the government, the industry, etc.

You're evading the question. You said, all that matters to goodness is loyalty and hence my question about a band of genocidal maniacs people who are loyal, let's even say deeply loyal to each other and whether they qualify to be counted among the ranks of, say, the Buddha or Jesus? — TheMadFool

I am quite sure I did not say "all that matters to goodness is loyalty". Because I did not list all the things that are important to goodness, it is understandable how you could interpret what I said to mean that. I said what I said to open the discussion. I think your mention of Buddha and Jesus opens it further. I do not believe any other species contemplates those men and what they said.

The question is if we need morals and ethics and animals do not? All social animals depend on each other for survival so they need a mechanism for getting along. They just don't label things and talk about them. As far as we know they do not imagine another reality and talk about people who talk about a different reality. Would I be a better person if I believed life on earth is only an illusion and there is a better life waiting for me if I qualify?

I am not sure what you think is good about Jesus or Buddha? The story of Buddha is he darn near starved to death because he was caught up in a movement of self-torture and deprivation. A nutty idea. Not any better than being a hermit monk. Give me a scientist or a teacher with practical knowledge. I am questioning the value of morality that may have nothing to do with our survival. On the other hand, understanding morals as a matter of cause and effect can lead to good government and the advancement of human potential.

I have been thinking about how I was encouraged to use the expression, 'I believe' on some academic courses as an ownership of ideas? I am wondering about the nature of 'belief', and what that means in terms of personal construction of meaning and the wider scope of meaning? Does " belief' make any sense at all beyond the scope of personal meanings, and how can the idea of belief be seen in the wider scope of philosophy, especially in relation to objective and subjective aspects of thinking? — Jack Cummins

I believe starting a thought with "I believe" is inviting an argument and very good manners. It is friendlier than communicating as though we do not doubt ourselves, and sort of like Socrates, who insisted he knew nothing, which is the beginning of wisdom.

We all check if a thought is true or not by checking with our bodies. Instead of saying "I believe" we could also say "that feels right" because we rely on our bodies to know truth, or right from wrong unless we are intentionally using the scientific method to know truth.

Interesting spell check insists I should say "the truth" as though there can be only one truth. Have we totally lost sight that we can have different truths and they can be valid from our point of view? I am starting a thread to question what spell is doing to the way we think.

So, a group of genocidal maniacs who are loyal to each other are good? Why the hell then are they put on trial and sometimes sent to the gallows?

Something's off. You need to rethink your idea of good & bad. Looks like it might get really interesting very fast. — TheMadFool

Not stealing because it could lead to going to jail, is not a very high standard of morality. There are many legal ways to take advantage of people. And calling a band of thieves genocidal maniacs is a bit hyperbolic don't you think?

This doesn't make sense. God is a threat to the devil. So, is God bad? A gang of thieves can trust each other, are they good? — TheMadFool

Yes, loyalty to our group is good. Socrates would have us expand our consciousness so our group includes others and the Athenian Oath was loyalty and duty to all Athenians. Even Hebrews had group loyalty and those outside their group were not treated the same. Just about everyone had slaves with the rule that those outside the group could be made slaves, but not those inside the group.

Religion tended to make one's group much larger than we would naturally understand our group. Now that does separate us from animals, who can not imagine such large groups. Because we do think of ourselves as members of very large groups, we do have some problems. Do I have to feed a homeless person who most certainly is not in my social group?

There is not a big difference between human and animal moral behavior. Our wiring for that is the same as for all social animals. The only thing that sets us apart from the animals is language and the ability to label our behavior and therefore think about it. Desmond Morris was a zoologist and wrote several books explaining animal and human behavior as the same. His best-known book may be "The Naked Ape". Later Michael Shermer wrote "The Science of Good & Evil".

I am quoting from Michael S. Schneider's book "A Beginner's Guide to the Universe". This is an advanced understanding of the trinity. It is about the trinity and the enneagram. The enneagram is made by overlapping three triangles so that they make a star inside a circle. It relates to Egyptian gods and the flooding cycles.

The inner lines of the enneagram show us how different parts of the year have inner connections. For example, perhaps you initiate an action on February 10. Taking action is like planting a seed that develops slowly, eventually producing flower and fruit in their seasons. Every process needs time to germinate and transform in its unique sequence. Its outer order around the circle based on the Triad shows us the event's familiar sequence in sidereal time. But the inner lines based on the Heptad show us how our actions ripple and weave across the circle of the year in harmonic time. Lines from point one, February 10 tell us that our action will have ramifications on June 10 and October 9. This system may seem farfetched, but it works as an agricultural calendar whose Triadic structure of seed (January 1) flower (May 1), and fruit (August 29) indicate proper times for sowing, tending, and harvesting. The Heptad's inner lines show the necessary relations between them. In this structure of four months each- Ahmet, season of inundation and sowing; Pert, season of growth; and Shemu, season of harvest and inundation. — Micheal S. Schneider

Christians adopted the enneagram for explaining religious emotions. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Holy_Spirit

Que? I have read what you wrote. And I explained that what you wrote was a called a no true scotssman fallacy. And yes, there absolutely is Christianity without clarity. If there is something emphatically unclear it is religion, even by its own lights. The Islaamic theologican an philosopher Al Ghazali has written most interesting things about fate despite rational unclarity. — Tobias

What a wonderful to start the day, a good cup of coffee and a good argument. :grin: What you said may be true but it stretches my imagination to think there could be a Christian group that does not think acts of charity are essential to being Christian. But a person who does not believe Jesus is a savior can not be a Christian, right? Maybe that is a better analogy? I really do not believe there can be a democracy without reasoning, however, I can totally believe people who do not reason can believe they have a democracy. This might be a good time to ask what are the characteristics of democracy and question how many of them can be missing before the democracy is no longer a democracy?

And then, the analogy is shoddy as well. Why would clairty and religion have anything to do with democracy and reason? You just proclaim something but do not argue your point.

Because, when we do not have our facts right, we get bad results. It is very important that we have our facts right. Following Trump and ignoring the science of ending a pandemic has very bad consequences. Committing acts of war has very bad consequences and it is immoral to do so if it can be prevented.

Wut? And they forgot to call me when the gods started to discuss under the veil of ignorance?

Well, you were not born yet. :lol: Actually you do have a seat at the table and that is exactly what democracy is about. The Athenians concluded logos is the controlling force of the universe and even the gods are limited by logos. That means it is important to discover logos (cause and effect) and not so important to know the gods or argue god's truth. To be a good citizen you should know Homer's stories, and that is like learning good manners, but what really matters is understanding how the universe works. Welcome to science and democracy.

The US did not prepare everyone for democracy. In fact the US supported ruthless dictatorships in South America.

Didn't that happened after 1958? When the US began preparing for the Military-Industrial Complex and dropped education for good moral judgment and citizenship. I would not have an argument if I had not studied the history of education and learned of the German difference. What is your source of information? I will not deny that the US has used gunboat diplomacy, but that was not wars approved by congress. Athens did the same thing the US has done after the Prussian war and Sparta kicked their butt. This could derail the thread so I don't want to explain that but both democracies were around 200 years before thinking their shit didn't stink and it was their destiny to rule.

Yes and not with 'rule by reason'.

Logos is the controlling force of the universe. We either understand it correctly and get good results, or we do not and get bad results. Democracy is not about a God and being His favorite people. It is understanding morals, how the universe works, and good manners. It is about right reason.

From the Democracy Series and among the characteristics of democracy is "the search for truth"
— Athena

Great, by what political philosopher have those been composed? The search for truth also takes place in non democratic countries. In face the scientific revolution preceded democracy.

First point- we had education for democracy because only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and is liberty possible. That is social control by culture, not a polices state as we have now. It was the educators who defined and taught good character, independent thinking, and democratic principles. What they taught was based on Greek and Roman classics because that literacy is essential to our democracy. That education was dependent on literature, reading more than one book (the bible) to understand our democracy.

Then we have Cicero “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Before education for technology, we were educated for liberty and justice and a democratic way of life.
— Athena

By whom? By the Romans? They ended up revering an emperor as God. You might be right there is all things wrong with current education, but your reasoning is incomprehensible. Perhaps caused by this shoddy education system I am thinking. You link epochs and ideas to each other without any rhyme or reason.

You are asking excellent questions and this may result in me completing a textbook for grade schools because you are helping me understand the questions that need to be answered.

Yes, my reasoning is incomprehensible because there is such a HUGE lack of information! You might see a running thread in what I am saying. It begins with understanding logos is the controlling force of the universe, and from there includes mention of what Greek and Roman classics have to do with understanding not only democracy but science as well. A liberal education is about those classics, math (to learn how to think), and science. Thinking education for technology is better, is believing a lie passed on by those who would rule over us and have been educating our young to be products for industry in a nation controlled by them. Effectively we have returned to a Dark Age, because we lost the knowledge of the Enlightenment.

Yes, all the more proof that Christianity is not related to democracy. The Prussian state was a militaristic 'obrigkeitsstaat', an perhaps the US has become more militaristic. I do not really know though.

You are getting it! :grin: I wish I had a bag of gold coins to give you for being the best at comprehending what I am saying. Even if all our weapons were thrown in the sea, we would be living under military order, not the democratic order we had. And this is directly related to reactionary politics and the dysfunction in Congress, the violence on our streets, the tightening of our liberty and strengthening police state, which has gotten frighteningly bad since 911, and Trump, our Hitler for the very same reasons Germany loved Hitler.

Understand, this destruction of our liberty and democracy is the result of adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education. The bureaucrat model is Prussian military order applied to citizens and shifts power and authority from the individual to the state. This frustrated the hell out of Trump, and our changed reality should concern all of us, but in over 10 years on the internet, I have not anyone who wants to think about the change in bureaucratic order and what the change in education has to do with that. Unfortunately, we are no longer the democracy we defended and Christianity is a huge part of the problem. Christians can either support liberty or authoritarianism. Which they support depends on their education. Democracy is about logos, not a God and a kingdom, and there is no hope for us if we don't get this right.

Your argument seems to run like this: triangles are important in philosophy. triangles are important in christianity, therefore Christianity is based on philosophy, but that is simply an invalid argument.

Yes, Christianity is based on philosophy. "In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1 There is the important trinity. "The word" is also "logos" but the word is our word for logos and a lot is lost in the translation. Unfortunately, that philosophy was tied to Judaism and eastern demonology and spun out as a religion of miracles. That went far off the path of Greek philosophy.

Most stools have four legs. I also like the number three and indeed in Islam the trinity is not accepted, but whether it is more or less reasonable to do so is up for grabs. The thread of argument that seems interesting in your ramblings is the following: The Christian metaphor of the trinity is a worthwhile heuristic device because it allows us to conceive of power as an interplay of forces without having to conceive of some centroifugal point. The number three holds value in argumentation because of how our minds work. That is all well and good. It is interesting and should be further worked out, but get rid of all the other bollocks, such as politics, democracy, justice and the military industrial complex.

Correct the trinity is not accepted in Islam. As I explained, the Romans did not accept it either, resulting in Christians killing each other in a fight about the trinity being three gods or one. For the Romans to accept the trinity of God it was essential to create a Roman vocabulary to translate the Greek concept. This did not happen in Arab territory so they were stuck with the notion that the trinity is 3 gods, not 1 and therefore, Christianity was in error. The Arab community was familiar with Judaism and Christianity and Mohammed simply correct the Christian error and Isam holds that Jesus is a prophet, not a god. Your argument seems to demonstrate the problem people had with the trinity.

"The Christian metaphor of the trinity is a worthwhile heuristic device because it allows us to conceive of power as an interplay of forces without having to conceive of some centroifugal point." Beautiful! Quantum physics and logos! Can you change your mind a little and think of the trinity as universal law instead of a metaphor? I think you have missed the power of 3. That is a real law of physics, not a metaphor. I suppose you could have a stool with 4, 5, or 6 legs, but you can not have a stool with one unsupported leg or 2 legs. Physically that just does not work. Now contemplate, instead of having a binary conscious, your consciousness was of the trinity in all things, not just god, but stools and a balanced government. What if you thought with the power of 3? Executive, legislative, and the judgment of if this both are within the law of the constitution. These are like the legs of a stool. The form give strength and balance. See? it is not just the number but form as well.

What I said is the US demobilized after wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is not a false statement.
— Athena
That might be true or not but that was not a statement, but an argument in support of your statement that US democracy could not go to war. That statement is false.

? Gunboat diplomacy is not a declared war. I don't think I ended a statement with the US could not go to war. The US could not go to war without the permission of congress. So we called Vietnam a military action instead of war. Then we change things to give the President greater war powers, and that lacks the wisdom of our forefathers, who intensionally made it hard for the US to go to war, so what followed 911 could not happen!!!! Excuse me, but I feel passionate about this! Our forefathers strongly opposed supporting Britain and paying taxes so Britain could colonize the world. Our constitution was designed to prevent the US from doing what Britain was doing. What some people still understand is the agreement was to not spend our money on military expenses above the minimal cost of defense and when we entered WWI and WWII it took a year to mobilize for those wars. Had we been under attack, we would not have had a good defense because we did not live for war as we do now.

Sure I know and sure I know they like triangles, but that notion was known in political philosophy before the US founding fathers. It always baffles me how much US citizens revere a club of land owners who had to bash out a constitution. They did a fine job but were by no means demi-gos, just people. People are inspired by ideas current at the time. The notions llike limited government and division of the political in three branches have been around since John Locke. Add tot hat that US democracy is a flawed form of democracy. The reason for that has nothing to do with triangles or reason. but with power politics between the populous states focused on trade and the less populous ones focusing on agriculture.

I am going to cry. Of course, the governing trinity was known long before the US. I am not understanding why you think that point needs to be argued? Before Locke there was Cicero and before Cicero was Greek philosophy. Cicero studied in Athens and that brings us to number and form and universal law. I would love to argue further the power of the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Executive, legislature, and judges, as the power of trinities, but I have to run.

Seems to me an early commercial for George Washington's rule.... The fact that images of God or Gods are used says nothing. about the republic being founded on reason. Founded on mysticism is more like it.

Of course, if you know nothing about the gods and our forefather's relationship to them, you do not understanding the meanings. Your judgment should not be based on what you do not know.

It is one of the hallmarks of a bet that its outcome is entirely dependent on the outcome of another event, the one you're betting on. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, but you can improve your chances if you study the riders and the horses before the bet, right? Then the competition can be who is the best at reading the facts and picking the winner. Have I understood correctly?

I find your explanation fascinating. Thank you. I never heard of institutional facts versus brute facts before. That language becomes an institutional fact is, for me, a very stimulating thought.

↪Olivier5
Well in the first two hundred years of Islamic rule nothing was created. Only when Ommavid Califate was replaced with a more tolerant Abbasid they started to produce significant scientific and philosophical content.
There is a lot of discussions about the early military success of Islamic armies, the main two reasons:
50 years of devasting war between the eastern roman empire and Sasanid Persia, and egalitarian preachment and equality (of men). Military success is not a sign of civilization, for example, look at Mongols victories. — Hooman

Thank you for stating the importance of liberty and entrepreneurship to scientific advancement and wealth.

:lol: Your statement about civilization and the Mongols is delightful! Also, Sparta is well known for its military strength and failure to develop in other ways. Our education for technology for military and industrial purposes has the US on the path of being Spartans rather than Athenians, with a mass dependent on government and industry to provide them employment, rather than their own entrepreneurship and community ties. Who can compete with the big box stores and third-world cheap labor? It is my understanding Islam has a different understanding of a good economy.

However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told.
— Athena

But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in those stories.]/quote]

Right, and the stories of Tory turned out to be true, so does that make the ancient understanding of the gods is true? All religions and philosophies support the human good. The Christian deification of Jesus and belief that somehow we must be saved by him is not true, and that Christian belief is extremely problematic because it denies so many truths, such as the shared goodness of people and the truth of evolution.
— Apollodorus

Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age.
— Athena

I don’t think there is any evidence for that. There was no “Dark Ages” in the Greek East.

The modern argument is the Orthodox Christians are still in the Dark Ages.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/the-orthodox-church-stays-in-the-dark-ages

Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed.
— Athena

They didn’t rebel against the Law. Christians rebelled against animal sacrifices, rituals and dietary regulations that in their opinion distracted from true spirituality. The core of the Law, consisting of the Ten Commandments, was preserved intact.

:grimace: How is that different from rebelling against the law? When God commands something, isn't that the law? Did not God speak through Mose who gave us the commandments? The whole belief is based on believing human beings got revelations from God. Some of those revelations were scientifically correct and Christianity began harmful when it said those commandments did not need to be followed, putting faith in miracles and fear of demons, above good health practices, and eventually burning Jews as witches.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made.
— Athena

Not at all. There is no connection between one and the other. As already stated, Christianity built upon what was already there in Classical and other traditions. And we can’t deny the fact that modern science developed in the West, not in Arabia.

:grimace: This is so hard, if it had been for what others achieved Europe would still be in the Dark Ages. It would not have the math that made a huge difference. It would not have printing nor the paper essential to making books, so it would not literacy. And the huge difference is not the religion people have, but their natural resources, a seaport, and good trade routes, and Christians would not have had those trade routes without eastern technology that made it possible to fenture far from land. In no way did Christianity make things better in the west, except for the Hellenism and Roman imperialism that separated Christianity from Judaism.

Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak?
— Athena

I think this may be another modern era myth. Of course, some Jews were involved in monetary transactions. But large-scale money lending (at interest!) was already practiced by Christian estates controlled by monasteries and the Church.

That is denying the Christians were as opposed to usury and being materialistic as the Muslims. And it also denies the evils that came with industrialization, the very reason both Christianity and Moslems had moral restraints. Puritans came out of Calvinism and Calvinism flipped the whole money issue from being an evil to being proof that one is blessed and chosen by God. We have a problem when a belief is not grounded in facts and in this care that includes denying the evils that go with the pursuit of money to argue our wealth is because God blesses us. :shade: :naughty: There for our military is God's" power and glory" and it is our destiny to eliminate those who block our pursuits of wealth, such as the USSR, the oil-rich nations and Cubans.

There was some initial opposition to commercial activities by the clergy and monks but by the 1100's this was no longer the case and capitalism was able to develop without hindrance from the Church. There was nothing comparable in the Islamic world where production and exchange came increasingly under the control of the state. It was the economic freedom in Christian Europe that made the difference IMO.

Yes, and the British merchants became increasingly under the control of the British government because self-centered people focused on profit are not good people. Want they were doing in India was terrible!
You are effectively saying it is a good thing for landowners to throw people off the land and fence in that land to keep people off it so that it can be used for raising sheep and having a bigger profit than the old agrarian system. And there is nothing wrong with industry buying people's children to use as slave labor with no regard for the health and emotional well-being of the children. You might want to deal with our ugly history and immediate problems, instead of staying within a religious fantasy. We did not get here through the blessing of a God. Our wealth is the result of a lot of human suffering, and giving God credit for our blessings might be a problem with logic. :brow:

As I said on another thread, also the hypothetical Gore administration would have gone to Afghanistan. And to respond to a terrorist attack with a military attack was something that already the Reagan administration had done. It's really, really difficult to think that Americans would have after 9/11. If Bush would have negotiated with the Taliban and gotten them to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, likely then he would have lost the next election. Even ironic is the Peace-deal that Trump made with the Taliban: they would immediately accepted such a paper in September/October 2001.

The issue never was what to do with Afghanistan. Or how to win...an insurgency of one's own making. — ssu

ago — Athena

Well thank you for mentioning Reagan. Let us take this back a little further to Eisenhower and the establishment of the Military-Industrial Complex in the US. The Germans, or actually the Prussians gave us the model for this, so I wanted to clarify the intentional US adoption of what we defended our democacy against.

Bush had no desire to avoid war because he was with the neocons. The neocons fully understand the power and glory of the Military-Industrial Complex and I think about 99% of US citizens are complete ingnorant of it and what their tax dollars are supporting.

I have no idea why you said Gore would have invaded a country that did not pose a threat to the US? If Kucinich had won the election and become our democratic president, the US would not have gone to war. Kucinich would have lead the US in mourning 9/11 and he would have encouraged the sympathy of all nations including Muslim ones that had not yet become our enemy. Our nation would have taken a completely different path and we would not be in the mess we are in now. And I want to point out the neocons did their best to get Bill Clinton to go to war with Iraq and he opposed such a war.

Reagan was 100% in favor of US military control of the mid-east. He was so supportive of this that he slashed domestic budgets at the height of a long recession caused by OPEC embargoing oil to the US, and poured all our money into military spending. Texas was behind Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush, and Cheney. And by the way, the most important reason for you to elect someone for being President is this person's stand on abortion. Those right to lifers are the biggest supporters of wars that kill thousands of non-Christian people and display the Power and Glory of their God and their nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jm-2WfTvk

I am all in favour of peace, but the US not engaging in war before Korea is false, it entered the first and second world war on the side of the allies, it fought wars against Mexico and Spain to name but a few and during and before those, it managed to slaughter the native American population and massacre each other from 1861 to 1864. The US has a nice track record when it comes to going to war. I am not bashing the US here by the way, it is not judgment, just fact.

You seem to curiously relate politics to theology to mathematics... why though is beyond me, creating some odd mathematical mysticism that you seem to want our kids to learn. If you want to make a point about the usefulness of the triangle as a metaphor and its perennial use in theology, politics and philosophy, than you have an interesting point. However, you hang way too much on it and it breaks the whole wall apart you have been masoning here. — Tobias

What I said is the US demobilized after wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is not a false statement.

Do you know what the Masons are? Do you know several of the US founding fathers were Masons? If you do, you should know they designed Washington D.C. and the US government with an understanding of the power of math and form.

Also since the beginning of civilizations religion has given governments legitimacy. And in a slightly different take on the importance of the gods, the Capitol Building in D.C. has a mural of the gods that make a republic strong. This link will explain what the gods have to do with the democracy of the US. https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/exhibitions/capitol-story/apotheosis-washington They go with being a Mason and the founding fathers' thrill of making history as we move closer to a new age. If you understand these gods, you know what math and science have to do with our democracy.

You seem to curiously relate politics to theology to mathematics... why though is beyond me, creating some odd mathematical mysticism that you seem to want our kids to learn
— Tobias

Good point. — jgill

Not a good point. A misunderstanding. Look, to me Pi is absolutely mystical. It seems perfectly logical to me to think math is mystical, but it does not come with supernatural notions.

However, Christianity does get us all snarled up with superstition so I can appreciate your reluctance to consider the importance of math in relation to rule by reason. But it is very important to understand the trinity of God is what separates Islam from Christianity. Interestingly the Arabs agreed with Christian notions so it adopted Christianity instead of Judaism, but it could not accept the trinity of God, so it accepted Jesus as a profit, not as a god. I want this to be clearly understood to improve the chances of using reason to bring about peace. The real break between Islam and Christianity is the argument of one god or three. It is different ways of understanding the power of the trinity as one or three separate gods.

The trinity of the American republic's government is as important as the trinity of God and this is devoid of superstitious notions. It is understanding the power of the trinity is like the reason a stool has 3 legs. A stool with only two legs would never work. Three, the trinity is very important. I don't think we want Trump on a unicycle no matter how entertaining he is.

What you perform here is a 'no true scotsman' falacy. You state that a democracy is defined as rule by reason and when I object you tell me it is no longer a democracy if it is not. That way you simply define democracy to suit your own terms. However, in no literature have I ever come across such a definition. The rule of law maybe, but the rule by reason? It is also very unclear what that is supposed to mean.
I am also interested what you consider to be the 'German model'. Last time I checked German education was quite good environmentally friendly and very pro democracy. — Tobias

I love that, if you have not read what I am saying is so about democracy, it must not be so? Is there Christianity without charity? Well, there is not democracy without reasoning.

The problem is democracy does not have one book that is the authority on what democracy is. However, we have the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reason and democracy is an imitation of the gods. We also have Socrates and Plato who speak against democracy because people can be persuaded by bad reasoning. Which in Socrate's day lead to a war with Sparta and Athens lost! He was pretty displeased with Athen's democracy but he gave his life to support it and freedom of speech. His life was devoted to teaching better reasoning and expanding the conscience. In his explanation of the Republic, it would-be philosophers who rule. In the past, the US attempted to prepare everyone for democracy, so we have a republic that through education had a culture for democracy.

In old test books, democracy is defined like this "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." From the Democracy Series and among the characteristics of democracy is "the search for truth". It also explains democracy thrives on criticism. We prepared the young for democracy with reading that built moral character and was focused on learning concepts and speaking well. Education was about good citizenship and that included lifelong learning essential to being a well-informed and responsible citizen. Our notion of liberty came with education for good moral judgment.

Then we have Cicero “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Before education for technology, we were educated for liberty and justice and a democratic way of life.

When the Prussians took control of Germany, they centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose. They had a Christian Republic but it was authoritarian, and that is what the US has become. That is not what we defended in two world wars.

The problem is that democracy is not necessarily rule by reason. Democracy is rule by popular will but this will might not be reasonable. You also seem to suggest that the concept of the trinity as three aspects is somehow based in math and therefore more reasonable. Moreover that therefore people holding that view are less prone to killing. That all is false. the ISlamic god is just as mathematically reasonable because rooted in the number one. Also Christians that did all recognise the trinity killed each other mercilessly see the 30 years war in Europe. — Tobias

When a democracy is no longer rule by reason, it is no longer a legitimate democracy. Education is essential to democracy and that is not education for technology! Because the US replaced liberal education with the German model of education for technology, it is now what it defended its democracy against. A police state serving military might, and self-destructing because of reactionary politics. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended,

A saw is not a more reasonable tool than a hammer your logic seems wrong to me. I think in general Americans need a better understanding of their mathematical heritage. Many of the founding fathers were Masons and the trinity is three forces keeping each other in check and balance. If anyone becomes weak, the triangle breaks and the democracy ends.

Let me clarify, absolutely, the trinity is three aspects or three forces, and this knowledge is based on math and therefore is good reasoning. That knowledge is essential to a population that wants democracy.

My reasoning is not false but the people in the US are ignorant of math, logos, and cause and effect. They are not only ignorant but their thinking is way too short-term and narrow! The US entering the mid-east to control oil and establish strategic power there, was sure to be expressive and have unpleasant ramifications. Doing so has seriously weakened the US, or at least Biden's hold on power, as the mistakes of the past are now in his lap. I hate to think of what will happen if this results in Trump's return to power because Trump is destructive to our relationship with our allies when these relationships are more important than ever before. My point is bad reasoning gets bad results, and good reasoning gets good results and democracy is about understanding that.

Our democracy in the US, was not only less prone to war, but intentionally unable to engage in war because we demobilized our military force at the end of wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is the point in time when we because the Military-Industrial Complex we defended our democracy against in two world wars. During the first world war, we were best known for our missionaries and charity and it took us a year to mobilize for war. Around the world, we were known for being anti-war and working for peace. One step to world peace was President Kennedy's Peace Core, which is sent around the world to help people resolve serious problems and have better lives, without military force.

I had not thought of monads apart from Leibniz's mathematical contributions. I now see that there is much more to the monad than I knew. Thanks for bringing this up. :cool: — jgill

You might appreciate the book A Beginner's Guide to the Constructing the Universe- the Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science, by Michael S. Schneider. That clarifies how math became science and is a good understanding of the foundation of logic and philosophical thought.

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?
— Athena

Why should this be the relevant dichotomy? — baker

Because it is the difference between the police state we have become or having the democracy we think we have. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. Until 1958 the priority purpose of education in the US was education for good moral judgment and good citizenship. The 1950 National Defense Education Act ended that and replaced it with education for the Military-Industrial complex which is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. Now a guard stands at the door of our hospital and we can not enter without the covid protocol and the question "are you carrying a weapon" with a security guard standing there in case you are stupid enough to say you are carrying a weapon. This came about when we called in the National Gaurd to help our overwhelmed hospital. Years ago, our Social Security office gained a permanent armed security guard. Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture.

When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).

Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).

The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.

It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs. — baker

I truly like what you said. Let us work with "Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that)".

We have one planet. Science has caught up with the notion that of Gia, and the planet being a living organism, and knowing we are killing the organs of this organism we call earth. What is more sacred than living in harmony with the planet that gives us life?

Next point- logos, reason is the controlling force of the universe.

The 10 tribes that agreed to become one nation were the Sioux, Mississippian, Apache, Navajo, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw, Cherokee and the Iroquois. The Shoshone and Anishinaabe joined the federation two years later. These people carry the belief that a man gave them the way of peace, that is our human capacity for reason. Democracy is rule by reason if people understand that or not. It was understood by Greeks and the Native Americans. It is democracy that gave us peace, not religion!

Can we put that together with what you said binds us as a community? We take from the earth and we carry an obligation to our earth and all life on the earth. We achieve agreements and have peace through reason.

That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others. — baker

That is our sacred duty as indigenous people have understood it since the beginning of time.

No idea was ever shared by many until it was communicated to others. The tribes did not live in peace, until a man gave them with the idea that peace is possible through reason. Ideas are like safety pins. When people understand the benefit of one, everyone wants it. When there is a problem, that is a lack of good reasoning. Our sacred duty at this time is not only to our earth and all life, but also to learn all we can from the geologists, archeologists, and related sciences and to rethink what we believe is true so that we might know truth. We are at a crossroads. Either we enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny, or we self-destruct. We need philosophy to make that transition.

Simply put it: Americans created their own narrative about the war and for the reasons to fight the war without any interest or thought given either to Afghans, Afghan internal politics or neighboring countries and their objectives. That's the real reason. And you can see it in the commentary now given by Joe Biden extremely well. — ssu

We have plenty of agreement. What happened was all about the neocon agenda that included Cheney and Bush jr. and the New Century American Project with the goal of securing military control of the mid-east. The neo-cons defined their goal and how they would achieve it, long before 9/11.
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/project_for_the_new_american_century/.

These folks should have been charged with war crimes long ago, and the Christian Right needs to see how they have been manipulated to achieve military goals that were not about national defense, but the "Power and Glory" the neocons wanted. I am hoping for a history book that reveals the truth including the manipulation of the Christian Right and the real abortion rights political goal. These right to lifer's were thrilled to watch us destroy Iraq with bombs of mass destruction calling this our "Power and Glory" associating it with the power and glory of God. No civilization has more innocent blood its hands than Christian America.

That is why I reacted strongly to you saying "These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches". I do not feel rosy about the lies we were told and the reason the lies could be sold to Christians. It is obvious we were not there for our defense nor to help Afghanistan succeed. And throwing money at these problems is not the answer either. Maybe if we drop religion and start thinking about how the world really works, we might come up with solutions.

Trade didn't even come to be an issue: trade and economic issues are mainly for peacetime. Not when you are fighting a war (and utterly losing it), you don't care about trade and the economy. These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches. — ssu

Who was fighting a war other than the neocons? Other than making things worse and a guilty conscience what else have we gotten out of our investment in the mid-east? Good results require right thinking. I don't see what we have done, as right-thinking. The results sure have not been good!

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has never provided a full accounting of the costs of America's so-called “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq. But researchers at Brown University estimate that the U.S. has spent $5.8 trillion on the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.Sep 1, 2021 — USA Today