Some define "family" in the conservative capitalist way of a "nuclear" family. In the old days, and especially among indigenous people, family was more communal. One had many brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Blood was not determinative.

Some would divide and conquer this traditional notion in order to better utilize the individual human resource. Nuclearize him and he becomes less dependent upon the group and more dependent upon his employer.

Socialism is just the family writ large. If we were to make a virtue of necessity, and exalt the giver instead of the taker, then positions of authority would be filled by the provider that no one would be required to follow, suffering only ostracization if they upset the family apple cart.

Listen to the givers. Pay attention to how they got what they give. Realize you and your spouse aren't much good at raising well-rounded humans all by yourself. It takes a village. Look around at how fucked up the world is right now. Not enough mothers, brothers, etc. Too many who think they are an island. — James Riley

Nicely said.

Before 1958 we had education that promoted families and being cooperative. In 1958 we began education for Military-Industrial Complex and completed the shift from dependence on family to dependency on the state. We replaced the classical Greek and Roman philosophers with Germany's philosophers, the very ones who lead to Nazism. We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family.

Someone mentioned robots and that is cheaper to make robots than prepare children for Industry. Sorry, I can not find that post but I want to acknowledge the importance of that thought. And to say, effectively we do have robots and a computer-controlled society. This is the result of adopting the German/Prussian model of bureaucracy and the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry.

Arguing about capitalism or socialism is being pretty clueless.

Living somewhere where there is not exactly a great deal of help handed out to people I can see your point. That said I don't think things are much different now than before. Reading articles by persons such as George Orwell from the late 40's I could easily have mistaken them for a modern piece. I think times change but some conflicts in society are necessarily eternal. I am curious to see how/if our current means of mis/communication impacts upon the common repeating trends of so-called left or right political stances.

As ever (no apologies for repeating myself) the issue seems more about mass global media and the advent of the internet age we've just started coming into. I put a lot of the current sociopolitical turmoil/upheaval down to greater awareness and exchanges between peoples/cultures than in any period in human history.

I think this account for a seemingly growing polarity between different political attributes, but the reality is more or less that we just have more contrast (and extremist views) thrown around in social media circles leading to the appearance of (and perhaps creation of due to belief in?) a greater problem than the reality of the situation has to offer.

I think there is too much emphasis on the extremes of both ends of the argument and that hyperbole doesn't help much. I would like to see free healthcare and education on a global scale. When I saw a woman on UK news interview complaining about funding to help with her children out of school I laughed! It is people like her that are the main problem and usually the most vocal too (note: She did her interview with fine bone china clearly on display in her cabinet behind her and she wasn't particularly concerned about how others were struggling and just wanted her piece of the payout).

I would prefer to see people at the LOWEST end of the spectrum receive a larger chunk and cut out people who simply feel that they 'deserve' something because they 'work so hard'.

Neither conservatism nor socialism are dirty words. They are both perfectly legitimate policies but either as a stand alone scheme to fix all problems are pretty terrible.

Have we made this social change with much thought?
— Athena

No. We never will because we cannot see what happens until it happens. Conservatism will hold us back from finding a 'better' way or making a terrible make, and Liberalism will open us up to more more mistakes yet allow us to search beyond the norm for a 'better' way.

Too much thought will lead to stagnation, and too little will just lead us back to where we begun with no step forwards. We have to learn (in group thought and/or individually) through our mistakes. Sometimes the cost will be brutal but there is always tomorrow - until there isn't! :D — I like sushi

There are so many excellent posts!

We can see what will happen by learning how different sets of values, played out in different nations. The US has adopted the bureaucracy and education of fascist Germany and the destruction of family values of the USSR.

George Orwell from the late 40's could observe fascism. While many in the US thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes, George Orwell saw the danger of centralizing power and authority. Democracy in the US was far from efficient and the federally controlled social programs we have today would not possible without adopting the German (Prussian) model for bureaucracy. Social Security would not be possible without the change in bureaucratic order.

The change in bureaucratic order was made for good reasons. The problem is we lack of awareness of that change. Because we have no understanding of it, we have no control of our government, and this loose of control is leading to concerns of civil war.

We strongly stood against the federal government controlling education until the 1958 National Defense Education Act replaced our democratic model built on Athens' model of education for well-rounded individual growth. The huge difference in these education models is preparing everyone to be generalist or specialist and preparing everyone to be independent thinkers or reliant on authority. We can see in Perciles' funeral speech that democracy requires generalists, not specialists, and we can see in Eisenhower's warning of the Industrial Military Complex there is a danger in depending too much on specialists. We have experienced a huge shift of power and authority and in general, have no understanding of what happened. All we know is we are pitted against each other. If we do not resolve this problem before my generation dies, the memory of the democracy the US once had will be as forgotten as the memory of Athens, and we return to a dark age.

I'd like to know what "family values" are. It's often thrown around as a warning, but its meaning is quite elusive.

Or, it could simply be a phrase used as an excuse for sensible policy. — Manuel

Okay, let us compare fascism with democracy. Where does one's loyalty lie? With the state or
with the family?

What are the values that are best for social order and why?

I am not sure if you are trying to make a point by being sarcastic or if you are being sincere? I suspect what you said is based on misogyny and that you were not being sincere. Am I right?

Personally, I believe family is more important than individuals. Love of state over love of family is reminiscent of Hitler's fascism.

His take on the civil war issue is not the same as mine. I don't think anyone promotes civil war more than Trump and this division of those who seem to worship Trump and those who can not stand him is so bad it is tearing families and friendships apart. This division is not exactly about money, but very different values and beliefs.

Economics, I think.

For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.

Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.

Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else. — Bitter Crank

I want to address both of you on this understanding of economics. When the USSR "liberated women" they said the full-time homemaker was a none productive member of society and the state intentionally created social pressure to get women to join the workforce. The effect was economic improvement because of doubling the workforce. Wages could stay low and productivity went up.

The rate of abortions and divorces went up, and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. It didn't take long to realize state-paid child care was essential to this economy. John Dewey an American education expert was dismissed as the USSR education advisor, in favor of education for communism and loyalty to the state.

In 1958 we radically changed public education and replaced our "domestic education for good citizenship (strong family values and independent thinking) with education for a technological society with unknown values. (end of family values and "group think). This resulted in radical social changes that were an improvement, but also an increasing abortion and divorce rate and growing poverty, and finally, we recognize the government must pay for child support. We can add to this, the number of women and children involved in violence and crime has increased both as victims and offenders.

NO ONE WANTS TO BE JUST A HOUSEWIFE! How well I remember the "New Woman" magazine and the destruction of the value of a full-time homemaker. Loyalty to the family has gone to hell and dependence on the state has increased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N9K7eoVtm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GYLwgVxQs

Changing the image of a woman was very popular and this came before the cost of living required two paychecks Let us be aware of this, Our economy is based on supply and demand. As women entered the workforce, not only did wages drop with the increased supply of labor but more and more families could apply for housing loans, and as the banks got richer, the cost of housing went up, and we are trapped in an economic system that is in serious trouble, while our children are institutionalized because no one wants to be "just a housewife" and only the disgusting poor women stay home to raise their children.

Apparently it was a difficult life for children in Sparta. Among other harsh child care practices, it is reported that "unfit" children were killed soon after birth. I think your idea of good child raising is different from mine. — T Clark

Please, explain what you think I said, and how you think your idea of good child-rearing is different from mine.

My point was, Sparta had on family values. As soon as males came of age they lived in the barracks with other men and everything, including sexual intimacy, was focused on those male relationships. This was extreme loyalty to the state and a lack of family values.

We’re all to blame. State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power. We’ve given up on educating and rearing our children, passing that responsibility to the state, then wonder why people seek statist solutions. It’s all they’ve ever known. — NOS4A2

Thank you.

When the US entered the first world war, Industry attempted to close the schools claiming the war caused a labor shortage and they were not getting their money's worth from education because education was not preparing the young for jobs and they still had to train new employees. That is when we began VOCATIONAL TRAINING. it was not just industry that needed trained workers but our lack of vocational training was a national defense crisis! In times of war the government is the biggest employer and we were not ready for war! We needed typists, engineers, machanics, etc now!

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens is good for making patriotic citizens, and everything they did to support the war effort was awesome! Education was the most important civil institution for mobilizing us for war until 1958, when military technology made it possible to mobilize for war in 4 hours, instead of a year. We no longer need patriotic citizens as we once did, and we dropped education for good citizenship and family values.

Today it is the parents who can argue they are not getting their money's worth from education because our young are being prepared to be products for Industry. That was something we stood against. I want to highlight what you said. "State power grows in inverse proportion to the decrease in social power." There is a huge difference between educating for family values and good citizenship, and educating the young to be products for Industry. Hail Hitler. To whom are you loyal, your family or the state? If you go in for counseling, the mental health professional will turn you away from family values in favor of being self-centered and will help you see your family as toxic and your need to become independent. In the past, this was a need to grow up, and education helped the young do that. If you can not depend on your family, who can you depend on? The state of course.

Food for thought. Balancing a welcome carpet for immigrants with social welfare movements. Law and order issues. And more. Sweden's wealth distribution figures are similar to those of the US. — jgill

That is an excellent explanation of Sweden's problem. The disparity between who feel like they are on the inside of Sweden's social order and those who don't is evidently a serious problem. A speaker at the 1917 National Education Association explained our schools were Americanizing immigrant children and it was expected their parents who did not understand the US democratic institutions would learn from their children. This was necessary to stop the bombings and other acts of violence. That is so easy to understand. People on the outside fighting for what they want because they do not know how to get it any other way. Every country should take this problem seriously and stop thinking in terms of criminals as naturally immoral people and enemies of the state, and address the reality of those who are on the inside and those who are not.

Family values are important to social order because they support morality emotionally and intellectually. This was the main focus for Confucius, but it is also important to democracies. Strong families mean strong nations. And gays are not destroying family values but are often better models of family values than straight families. Family values can be promoted by education and the media. At this point in time, the US education and media score very low when it comes to family values, and this concerns me.

The natural family support system of immigrants is broken by the fact of separation. Others in the forum have mentioned how war and poverty also break down the family support system. When the family support system is broken down, there is a greater need for the government to become a strong parent enforcing discipline and providing assistance. In the US, the family support system is very weak because family values are very weak. Ignoring this is like ignoring cancer. The problem will get worse.

5. most people have relatively petty interest, such as keeping their job, not being ostracize by friends, making an extra buck along the way, etc. — stoicHoneyBadger

If you are a parent what do you want and what are you willing to sacrifice?

So, what percent of people would attempt to help a stranger before helping themselves? — stoicHoneyBadger

Does the number of people matter? How about the firefighters who enter burning buildings and the divers who rescued the boys from a cave in Thailand? There are many people who put their lives on the line for others. The instinct to do that is what makes war possible.

That is why capitalism work - the system is set up in such a way as to get money you have to do something useful that others will pay you for. — stoicHoneyBadger

Fine but who takes care of the children and the ill and the elderly? For how much money?

So the default position for the modern person is to think that to be anti-work is to be anti-social. — schopenhauer1

Homemakers were very social people because taking care of relationships was a very important part of being a homemaker. Volunteering comes with intrinsic rewards of feeling important, getting an important job done, being appreciated. Of course, we do not normally think of the homemaker as a working person, but today we are realizing someone has to care for the children, so our solution is not to strengthen family values and marriage law to assure children's needs are met, we have agreed to push the homemaker out of the home and pay someone to do what she did simply because she believed she should do it. And we are scrambling to find people to care for the elderly, another thing homemakers did without pay because they believed they should do it.

Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizingly slow death by starvation — schopenhauer1

Have you ever tried to produce enough food for your family and preserve it, and make the clothes and other things a family needs? If a person is single, survival is less challenging, but it can still be life-threatening. My point is, mother nature does not care if you live or die, and thinking we survive without working, is an error. One way or another we are forced to work, or beg for the kindness of others. In the old days, a woman could produce everything the family needed and she was not paid to do so. It was done because that is what a good woman did.

When I hear or see something without concrete evidence for knowledge, beliefs are formed in the mind by intuitions.  Therefore the origin of beliefs is perception aided by autonomous intuition. I don't need anything else such as claims / acceptance in between the process in most cases.

For the country USA,  it is an impossible place to understand from outside of the country.  I wonder if I lived in the USA, maybe I could understand and form a more accurate belief about the country.

  One minute I hear something about the USA, and my belief is formed about it.  But then I also hear about something totally different or see something opposite to what I heard or seen in the media.  Maybe it is such a large area with many states having all sorts of different people, environments and situations?

For example, I hear / read about the negative and desperate situation in the USA with various issues with detailed explanations,  photos and even videos.  But then when I go to Twitter, and some of the photos and videos and their stories from the people in the USA, they are totally different and opposite stories. — Corvus

When the facts do not agree, they might not be facts but opinions. Or when something happens people may see it from different points of view. That is why we struggle to define what our words mean, but this is kind of like a dog chasing its own tail. It is another way of checking our beliefs. Is it based on facts or opinions?

We believe what we think is true but we can not be sure until we check the facts. Daniel Kahneman explains why we can feel confident about what we think, even when it is wrong. Especially the intuitive beliefs can be problematic. Our brains can play tricks on us. Some of our mistakes are common. Advertisers study those tricks and learn how to control what we think. One can pretty well control the outcome of a survey by asking questions that lead a person's thinking.

Last night I had a revelation of sorts - nations when they engage in so-called politics, their conduct mirrors how people, as individuals, interact with one another (the posturing, the dialogs, the lies, the pretensions, the back-stabbing, the compromise, the quarrels, the fights, and so on).

I have a particularly low opinion of politics and, as advised by an old friend, tried my best to stay away from any discussion on politics, failing, as it were, to realize I was always up to my ears immersed in it.

It was a Darwinian moment for me - I came to know I was, despite what I've been telling myself (I'm not an animal), a (political) animal after all.

The insanity, as far as I was concerned, was not the politics but how convinced I was that I was not involved in any politics. Delusional! — TheMadFool

Until I start arguing against what you said, I was not aware of how political I have been. I wanted to say I was a domestic woman and taking care of my family was all I could do. But then memories of what I have done began flooding in. I did a lot of volunteer work and really enjoyed sitting on policy-making committees. I have gotten signatures on initiatives, and stuffed envelopes. I organized homeless men to call attention to the homeless problem and joined Grandparents for Family Justice and we got the state's Children's Services policy radically changed. I have testified in public hearings at the city, county, and state levels, communicated with representatives, and wrote many, many letters to the editor. Now I am on the internet trying to raise awareness of democracy being rule by reason.

My poor daughter just wanted a "normal mother". :lol: But in her later years she has become sympathetic of how tortured I feel when I think something is wrong and needs to be changed. She is a bureaucrat now and helped me get the information I needed in this latest upsetting bout with government and I learned I was wrong and nothing needs to be changed this time. I am so proud of her. She stays cool and that usually means better thinking than what happens to me when I think something needs to be changed. Instant Chicken Little running around crying the sky is falling.

I personally believe that the modern nervous system is so attuned to Internet technologies/services, that any prolonged disruption would result in withdrawal and (ultimately) utter, utter chaos. IMO at least. — Bret Bernhoft

I think you are right.

I would suffer traumatic brain injury if the internet crashed. Really. One of the reasons my mind appears to still be functioning is that Google search, Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube, and a few thousand web pages provide me with mental content. It's always there 24/7. When I'm talking to relatives and others on the phone I can fact check; look up diseases and drug side effects; find recipes they (or I) forgot parts of; check etymology; get words and phrases translated; read scattered articles from NYT, Guardian, Boston Globe, LA Times, WSJ, and the Washington Post--and porn, of course: Architecture porn, dog porn, science porn, rock and roll porn, slum porn, porn porn... And I can shop for stuff--80% of which I could probably live without.

I would be a vastly better student today than I was in the 1960s. Well, maybe. I wasted a lot of time back then and there is nothing better than the Internet for massive time wastage. But still, there is such a wealth of good information (music, history, science, philosophy fora, etc.). — Bitter Crank

My X kept the family in very remote places where no one knew of the world outside their own backyard. I thought I would lose my mind or die of intellectual starvation. :lol: We were not a good match, he resented that I read books and one day piled them in the yard when I was gone. I got home before he burned them because fortunately, our 6-year-old daughter slowed him down. I would not want to continue living if I couldn't get on the internet. I need the folks in the forums very much!

But he had motorcycle boots and a black leather jacket and that looked really good to me when I was 18. :lol:

in third-rate sci-fi novels, when something happens to disrupt society, people promptly turn to looting, riot, vigilante reprisals for current, recent, or long-past slights; murder, and cannibalism.

Probably something like that. If you are plump and tender, you'd just better hope the Internet keeps functioning. — Bitter Crank

That is hilarious.

But personally, I can survive when I lose internet service as long as I can play games on the computer.
However, if more than a week passes, I do develop symptoms of a nervous breakdown.

I think that your reply captures the way in which sentience is an essential part of belief. It is not as if knowledge is some abstract aspect 'out there', because as human beings the way people search for meaning in the form of belief is an essential part of living existentially. — Jack Cummins

Perfect! I didn't read this before posting another reply. I needed the word "sentience" for the explanation I was trying to form.

I think that your point about destroying life is important and I could be tempted to start a thread about destruction, but won't do so for now, as there are several addressing the climate and environmental concerns.

So, I am thinking of how it connects to the nature of belief. What may be important is how there is often a consensus of belief maintained by those in power. Many people do not question authority and may be lulled into a security that the leaders know what they are doing. So, the issue may be about blind belief. — Jack Cummins

No that doesn't seem to explain what I see. My city has a board to discuss climate change and we have an organization that plants trees and our streets have been changed to better accommodate bicyclists, but the whole community is divided on all issues and some people are really angry about streets being changed to accommodate bicyclists. As some people are really angry about masks mandates.

When our strange weather first occurred and we had warm sunny days when we should not have had warm sunny days, I had no idea what was happening, only that nature was not right and this concerned me. While the people I knew were happy to have more warm sunny days. No alarm bells went off for them. I don't think our different reactions were about belief, but some of us enjoyed the nice weather and some of us were alarmed. Yes, the nice weather was nice, but nature being out of whack indicated something was wrong, to me.

My sister is as alarmed as I am, but she believes her granddaughters will have good lives because they are set to go to college and have high-paying careers. The future does not look that good for my family because I don't think any of them will go to college. Climate change is apt to hit low-income people much harder. That makes resolving problems more urgent for me. People with money will be safer than the poor. So my sister and I believe global warming is a serious problem, but her grandchildren will have a better chance of surviving. That changes the quality of our shared belief.

That is, differences in our anxiety levels, and differences in our circumstances can influence our beliefs, and if we feel like we must act on something or not. Like when I did start hearing about global warming, that was way in the future, right? I was telling the children in the family difficult times were coming and they needed to get educated so they could effectively deal with the problems that were to come. But it didn't seem urgent until serious forest fires began threatening us, and my thinking went from questioning the reality of global warming, and not caring too much because it was way into the future, to no longer questioning and realizing something has to be done now, not long off in the future. And this is like believing we need to wear masks and have covid shots or thinking that really doesn't matter. The covid threat is more serious when we know someone who has died. Until we begin experiencing the reality of something bad, we tend to not believe the threat is real. Like being young and invincible, bad things are what happen to other people, not me.

I love Dewey's suggestion. I remember the science building of Hollywood High, in LA California, and the message over the front door. It said Science is truth, and this bothered me because our understanding of sciences changes as we gain information.

Are there cultures that do not believe they can know truth? I am thinking of India and its acceptance of zero and perhaps indigenous people who live with life was it is without attempting to control nature? For the first time, I am questioning if the pursuit of science and truth has been a blessing or curse to us?

Zeus gave the first man the first woman and a box filled with miseries to slow mans' progress in discovering technology. He was afraid with the technology of fire, man would discover all other technologies and forget the gods. Here we are destroying the planet with our technology and increasing the mass of humans beyond what is sustainable. And it is not like this moment in time was completely unknown!. The ancients could see there would a time when our planet could no longer support the life on it. What may not have been seen is it would be our good intentions that would bring us to our doom.

Whatever, we need to figure out this puzzle and how to use math to be more realistic about what we can do and what is not sustainable. We have to stop blaming Trump or Biden for the crisis on our borders and realize what overpopulation has to do with the flood of violence and refugees. Around the world, violence is erupting, and refugees and trying to cross borders to save their lives and the lives of their children. Is there a culture that can manage this better?

I watched an explanation of why alternative energy is not going to save us. I was horrified to learn that some places in the US are burning trees to produce electricity. That is insane! Such grossly stupid decisions made by people at the top of industry and government have destroyed our faith in government and our leaders. I don't think this is what Jack had in mind when he opened this thread, but it is urgent that we question our immediate reality and if we are doomed to destroy life as we have known it in our modern civilizations? I don't think we can continue to believe future generations will have a good life.

Whatever content your post was, I feel that you were trying to offer me some advice.  I am not going to try to argue with it.  Whatever advice it was, I think it was out of care and good will, so I will say Thank you for that.

But for your comment on Trump, politics and democracy, I honestly have no knowledge at all on these matters, I am afraid.  So from your comment on these matters, I only notice that you are in the USA somewhere, and your interest in Philosophy is Politics and Democracy matters.

I have been to the USA a few times in the past about 20 year ago, and it was only for vacations to Florida state, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Key West. I liked it at the time.

But I do believe that the USA has gone through many changes since then, it is now in a totally different situation from that time.  All I can say is, that I hope all goes well, and things will get better for you and your country. — Corvus

I am on kind of a campaign to spread Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, but you appear to be Asian? Through this forum, I came across information about a fundamental difference in languages and how we process information. Perhaps Daniel Kahneman's research does not apply equally to all cultures. This would make a great research project for someone interested in such things.

You are lucky to not be as affected by Trump worshipping as we are in the US. Daniel Kahneman gives a good explanation of this phenomenon. What is happening in the US has everything to do with belief and blindly following the leaders to this belief system or that belief system. This was not always so and I think the education change in 1958 has social, economic, and political ramifications. We stopped educating for independent thinking and democratic principles. But there are also other serious changes! The common person is losing hope of owning a home and having the standard of living we all assumed was our right. We have become much more dependent on the government, and have diminished the importance of family. We have water shortages, and wildfires, and destructive weather events and it is impossible to deny things are not as we believed them to be 50 years ago. Our faith has been shattered and we are scared.

The post I was reading was not much different from the previous post to that, to me, so there was no point reading and rereading with attentive focus.   If you are a philosopher, then you not only have a rational mind of course, but also sharp intuition which you can use for fast scanning meaningless text for quick rejection, so that you are not wasting your valuable time. — Corvus

The point of reading with attentive focus is constructing the argument, which is totally different from telling someone his/her faults.

Sharp intuition? I don't think we should confuse a reaction with reasoning. They are not the same and Trump is not a God. Look we have a problem with what we believe about thinking. A reaction is not thinking. An intuitive thought should not be trusted until it is tested. What I am saying has serious political ramifications and this is essential to understanding democracy. If we are not pondering the thoughts of others and our own, we are not thinking. Here is an explanation of the difference between reacting and thinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

As Idea, yes, as unicorn, no. And so with seven, justice, God. I do not mean anything at all complicated here. It's been argued that forces are real but themselves neither material nor idea. I hold they're material, but would not care to argue it. — tim wood

Why seven, justice, God?

Seven is Heptad.

"The number seven occupies a critical place within the Dekad, where it acts as both a link and chasm. As a link between the first six and the last three terms, 1x2x3x5x6x7 equals 7x8x9x10 (equals 5040). As a chasm, with seven absent, 1x2x3x5x6 equals 8x9x10 (equals 720). Whether the value of seven is present or absent, its location serves as a pivot balancing ten. No other number or position within the Dekad does this."

"Whether the cosmos is represented as a musical scale in ancient times or as the modern sonic and electromagnetic spectrum, they both depict a universe based on vibration."

"Mythology, religion, science, mathematics, and art were once part of an integrated system of philosophy." Athena is associated with the number seven. My purpose is to express there is more than what appears. What started the vibration, what forms it into matter? I am not a materialist because without energy and forum there would be nothing. With math, we can see what is not visible to the eye.

Quotes are from "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" by Michael S Schneider.

With the material I hold the mental, ideas and feelings, to be altogether real. But real as they are, and not as they are not. — tim wood

:grin: I am not sure I follow your reasoning but it is intriguing. It is kind of like are unicorns real? Who does not know what a unicorn is? We would not mistake a unicorn for a whale. On some level the unicorn is real but I don't expect to see one except in pictures. If I enter a haunted house and have an eerie feeling that triggers my imagination, I may think I have experienced a ghost but I am still not sure ghosts exist.

"You must follow as told by Google, or the dictionaries says such as such, so it must be universal law and usage. Not accepting them is wrong. You are not following, and not accepting as told by Google or written in the dictionaries, therefore you are wrong."

I don't see any rational or logical argument from those statements. — Corvus

Well, that quote is not from me. This is what you said:

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

That appears to be your judgment, and it is not arguing a point made in the former argument. However, based on what you said an argument may be futile? Google for sure is not the word of God. However, google is common knowledge and that means are there legitimate reasons for working with that information.

Democracy is rule by reason and a search for truth. When we are not in agreement with common knowledge it is our duty to argue why we do not agree with the common knowledge and do our best to persuade others to accept our better reasoning.

Stating that you quickly scanned something before making your judgment, destroys your credibility because that means you did think about what was said. You merely reacted. 90% of the time we are reacting to each other without making the effort of truly thinking about something. I think it is important we know the difference.

Your existence is independent of your thoughts. You can think you exist. You can think you don’t exist. Either way you exist. That’s what I meant. — khaled

Not if you are a ghost.

If symmetry or balance, or the lack of, then measurement. — tim wood

I am not sure of your meaning, but we are programmed to see symmetry and patterns as beautiful. I think many think of math with dread, but math lovers are having an emotional experience when they discover the patterns or struggle to discover them. We all have that tendency but it is more awake in some. Unfortunately, the way we educate children can be very damaging to our natural curiosity and enjoyment of math.

I think my spiritual experiences are the same natural response to stimuli, and oddly most of us feel better when we do good things for others. This comes with being a social animal.

Our emotions are not material and I think there is more to life than matter.

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.