I understand you want to drop the religious mumbo jumbo and think about god in those other terms, but I’ve never understood why some folks keep the term “god”. Why define god so differently that it no longer resembles the religious god at all? Why not just let go of the label and talk about whatever it is you were trying to redefine god to be? (Like love or mystery or the universe...just talk about love, mystery or the universe! Lol) — DingoJones

Nothing could be better than starting the day with such wonderful questions. I love it. :grin: Let us go back to ancient times when no one was sure about what a god is and what a god does. A time when the gods were being created. :lol: We have an overpopulation of people now, and back in the day there was an overpopulation of gods and goddesses. Every time the priest became aware of a new concept they had a new god. Then we turned around and wanted a unifying force. :wink:

An Egyptian pharaoh thought the population of gods was too crowded and had the priest search the archives for the true god. When his grandson came to power he ordered a city to the one and only god be built and that the rest of the gods be forgotten. When this pharaoh and his wife died, his city was dismantled and buried. Some believe the followers of the one god religion fled to what was once Sumer and that they searched Sumers archives for knowledge of the true god and they plagiarized Sumerian stories. This would be the origin of the Hebrews, the Garden of Eden, the flood, and at least 3 other stories.

Athena's position in life was dramatically changed when Athens became a democracy. She could not have held the new position of rule by reason, before Apollo, a god of reason, came into being.

How exciting to question what we believe and to discover new gods or change our stories. :grin: Our technological society is overly concerned with facts. We have forgotten the importance of spirit. I don't mean a supernatural spirit but spirit meaning how we feel about things. To be wonder full as a child and play full about learning is a very different spirit than demanding the facts and proofs. And that is essential to knowing truth. As soon as we think we know god, we know god not. Some say we can study god in nature and others say we must read a book, but neither nature nor a book is god. If we want truth we must talk about this. We must begin with "I do know" and then see what we can find and argue about until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.

Then in comes science with the atom and oh no, the atom isn't the smallest thing, there are protons, neutrons, and electrons. Whoops, there are also quarks and :lol: will they ever stop naming new subatomic particles? As I was reading about the problem of too many gods, science began naming one subatomic particle after another, and I was impressed by how similar both searches of truth have been. We need to lighten up and be more playful.

A counselor I had said we create our own life drama. That is our story about our childhood and relationships and experiences. Life as it is seen from our own perspective. This can lead to emotional problems. Hum, I think that is related to our ego. It can be upsetting if someone argues what we believe of ourselves and our relationships, is not true. While Joseph Campbell who came from Jung speaks of our need for mythology and how our lack of shared mythology leads to creating our own mythology using the people in our lives as the monsters and heroes.

↪baker
I was responding to the claim that because there is illness, sickness, death, evil, etc, then there could be no God, because if God is omniscient, benevolent, etc, then none of these could be allowed to exist. This is a popular argument in today’s world which rests on a misconception of what the purported goodness of God actually entails (and which I describe as ‘the hotel manager theodicy’). But as those who repeat it likely have no practical experience of what ‘goodness’ entails beyond and above ‘the pleasure principle’, then there’s little use trying to explain it, as it will only result in an interminable argument from incomprehension. — Wayfarer

Oh but God gave man free will. He didn't give that to women who must submit to men. However, in Heaven, there is no free will, because our free will does not go with perfection. :lol:

I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?

“Basis”, not “bias”. — DingoJones

Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication?

About the argument about if god exists or not, I love to argue with Christians who want to believe I do not believe in God, because as soon as I say I do believe in God, that ruins what they believe about me as a non-Christian. When we argue there is no God, we are proving them right. The Bible tells them about non-believers so when they come across a non-believer, they go," ah, ha, the Bible is right. Here is a non-believer". I don't think proving the Bible right is the right way to go.

So I like to shift the argument to what kind of God makes sense? And here is another thing, Coming from Hellenism- logos, not even the gods can violate the laws of nature. The early god stories were more fantasy than reason, but as the Greeks developed reason, they pulled away from the supernatural and concluded even the gods were limited by the laws of nature. Athena marks a turning point from rule by brute force to rule by law, and that law is not imposed by the strongest person but comes about by arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

Christianity is a religion of miracles, and rewards and punishments are dished out according to the whims of God and it goes with another supernatural being, Satan. I have no idea how Christians figure if bad things happening are the result of God punishing them or Satan? None of that is cause-and-effect thinking. It is not science. For me, that makes the Christian God, an unbelievable god. I rather argue about what is a believable god than if there is or isn't a god. It is about having a fun argument instead of the futility of arguing against a god Christian's experience every day through prayer.

I love your argument and playfully will argue a different way to receiving things. Now, mother nature does not care if we live or die, and if we violate her rules, things will go very badly for us. We could even die. That is how we know she is running the show and the best we can do is figure out how she wants things done and do things her way. It is sort like the Tao, the way it is, we can go with the flow or against it. Denying its existence does not work so well.

I don't know the history of the unknown God. You know, the one that is beyond our comprehension? I think He is mentioned the Bible, along with not using His name and not making images so we do not create a false god. Some people have chosen to go against that wisdom.

I totally like the Greek gods whom I see as archetypes and concepts. I believe fantasies can be very powerful and that incantations of the gods/goddesses can be effective. Calling upon Artemis when I was in a dangerous situation in the mountains, helped me calm down enough to make rational decisions and get to safety. That is not magic. Our brains do what we tell them to do, and our bodies take orders from our brain. The god/goddess concepts are patterns we can use to accomplish what we want to accomplish. But this can seem like magic. That is, if we do not know how our brains work praying to God, can seem to prove that God is very real, and arguing that "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes" is not a believable argument for those who have had their prayers answered.

I think people live their fantasies, they just don't know they are fantasies. This would include people being exactly as we believe they are, if we like them, love them, or think they are really terrible, for all practical purposes, they are as we think they are. I think a good fantasy of family life is very important, and it is very important for people to share their fantasies of family before marriage or a child is conceived. And does the fantasy end in 10 years or last a life time? When people's fantasies of family are not compatible the displeasure will surely follow. When the fantasy is a short one, the marriage will end at about mid-life. But if the fantasy includes growing old together, that is likely to happen.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms. — baker

What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back.

Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. Also, I think there are psychological benefits to considering universal laws such as the Tao and feel subject to it.

Logos means nothing without definition.

What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased?

What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what? — DingoJones

Well, an easy answer would be logos, the organizing force of the universe, or mathematical organization. It could include strange ideas such as Jose' Arguelles explains in "The Mayan Factor". A galactic beam through which the Earth and Sun have been passing. A strange story that may or may not connect with density waves or beams that sweep through the galaxy and influence the galaxy.

An interesting point. I've asked this question a couple of times in the forum and never got a satisfactory answer.

What's the difference between "exist" and "real"?

What this query is meant to probe is the materialistic bias that the word "exist" has - to be perceived is to exist and vice versa but this fits the definition of the material too - to be perceived is to be material and vice versa. Basically, exist = material/physical the way the words "exist" and "material" are defined.

The issue popped up in a discussion about god. A member claimed that god exists but is immaterial to which I pointed out that such is impossible because exist is just another way of saying material. If that's how this game is played then, yes, Wayfarer, you're right in that there's a...difference between 'what is real' and 'what exists' — TheMadFool

I am not sure we are using the right vocabulary? Everything that is, is energy. We have a materialistic language to speak of that which exist but it is all also a matter of the state of matter.

Plasma is the fourth state of matter. ... To put it very simply, a plasma is an ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms or molecules and to allow both species, ions and electrons, to coexist. — Wikipedia

No thank you. I intentionally lift the definition open. Magical thinking is not our only option. We have the options of philosophy and science as well.

Hi, I am a theist and I have a question for atheists. I hope this does not cause too much turmoil. Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? I hope this makes sense. — Georgios Bakalis

I am one of those people who doesn't have a problem with the existence of a god, but it is the Biblical explanation of God I have a problem with.

many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well. — DingoJones

What would make the existence of a god awful? I mean if we do not use the Bible to describe God, then what is the problem? What if there is a god and it is nothing like a human but is like the universe?

And I can pry open a can of paint with a screw driver, although I shouldn't because it may wreck the tool. And that my bias: Aristotelean rationalism, such as it is, for the support of religion an abuse of Aristotelian rationalism. But on this I welcome correction. Please correct. — tim wood

It is about inductive and deductive reasoning. Bacon challenged the ancient authorities and this became a very important social movement radically changing our relationship with "authority" and social organization! Democracy could not happen without the change brought about by Bacon. Aristotle is deductive reasoning. Bacon and those who followed are inductive reasoning and empiricism follows. Before the change brought in by Bacon we did not have the consciousness, the questions, that promote science, empiricism, and change. That is the modernism that took us out of the dark ages. For about 2 thousand years, people did not challenge "authority" and did not expect change.

Inductive reason is relatively new and totally changed our relationship with authority and opportunities in life. In the past, we thought God controlled everything. Martin Luther thought God chose who would-be masters and who would serve, and that was determined by birth. Crazy isn't it? Philosophy led to radical changes in how we understand life and our social/political organization.

You might notice the Bible begins with linage and you might remember the Jews and Greeks had a war when the Greeks conquered the Jews and then hired people to do jobs on merit rather than the Jewish rules of positions being controlled by birth. It is pretty amazing Christians accepted the social/political order of Democracy considering the Bible is about kings and slaves, not democracy. My point being Bacon and inductive reason truly brought us into a new age.

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! Because you gave an opinion of your own state of mind. You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion.



You are the laughing stock of this forum board, and the new members are getting a good grounding of your inability to focus, argue, and think reasonably. — god must be atheist

I think you have confirmed my opinion. Heaven knows there is a lot I do not know and I don't fault others for not knowing something. But when one is not all-knowing and is trying to impress us with the idea that he is all-knowing, a correction might need to be made, especially when we are dealing with newbies who want to learn. I don't think philosophy is about being all-knowing but rather is about questioning what we think we know. Your point about making a good argument is an important one. :cheer:

My source of information was not Richard Dawkins but the history of education of which I have several books. You really do not know about Aristotle, the church, and Scholasticism, do you?

Thank you for that explanation.

I was grappling with Plato's notion of perfect forms. I don't think we are born knowing what a horse is, but we share some basic knowledge with animals, and an innate fear of spiders and snakes being common. Some people seem wired for music, while others seem wired for the acquisition of languages and others are certainly more into learning kinetically. Leaving a lot of questions about why we recognized patterns and how we learn?

One more thought, our notions of beauty are related to our ability to recognize patterns, things that are symmetric and in harmony are more appealing. Why?

I think empiricism and rationalism are quite sufficiently defined, and that Locke and Liebniz, respectively, are exemplars. Furthemore, that Locke's (and Hume's and a few others) empiricism is the most influential strand of English-speaking philosophy in the Anglosphere. — Wayfarer

I am glad we have agreement. I think those words are important and meaningful. The Catholic church relied heavily on Aristotle for its Scholastic education and the debates about such matters as how many angels could stand on the head of a pin. Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity.

We still have the conflict of empiricism and relationalism. Rationalism can support religious arguments, science/empiricism can not. When a nation needs to understand a pandemic this difference really matters.

But these patterns have to be taught previously in someone's brain. So the ability to reason is soft innate.
John Locke put a good example here. One of the basics of knowledge about Aristotle: one object cannot be a different object at the same time. Perfect we all understand it. But... What about all of those people who will never think about this principle? I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason.
I guess his ability to reason would be more precarious than ours that understand this criteria.

So, it will depend in someone's background to develop a good ability to reason and improve the knowledge. It isn't that innate at all. I think sometimes we born as a tabula rasa. — javi2541997

I am not sure that reasoning is correct? I doubt that is correct because of my experience with a man who was not intellectual and he was more capable of seeing things as they are than I am with all my college education. My thought experiment is the iceman who was found frozen and science has discovered incredible information about him and all the things he carried. To survive people had to perceive reality as it is, more like my friend who was more like an animal in his clear vision than a sophisticated modern man. I think the more sophisticated we get the more we are deluded by our own thinking.

It is not nature that turns a log into a boat. It is human imagination that turns one thing into something else. We are about as far from nature as we can get. Superstition comes from human imagination and that is getting further from truth, right? I have read superstition came late in our history. I have heard it said, if the bridge had not been invented, no one today could build one because our education makes us dependent on what is known. I really wish I could forget everything I know, as see the world as the iceman saw it.

Let's try to avoid simplistic labels. — Xtrix

That is like agreeing to meet and not being specific about the time or place. The word "word" is a label and we can not know what we are talking about without them.

I make an issue of this because of the difference between believing the Bible is God's truth and interpreting it literally, or concluding creationism is not a very good explanation for life as it is. Fearing demons and depending on miracles does not overcome evil as well as science.

Not that long ago, the only shared education most people had was the Bible. Scholasticism, the big advancement in education for Christian Europe was based on the Bible and Aristotle and encouraged debates, but it lacked the empirical thinking we have today because of thinking, rationale is all we need, to know truth. A civilization with mass secular education and empirical thinking is relatively new. I am sure Locke would be thrilled to see our shift from relying solely on the Bible to know God's truth, to empirical thinking.

John Locke is an empiricist, Leibniz is a rationalist. Locke is saying there's no innate knowledge, it's only whatever we glean from the external world. Whereas, Leibniz says knowledge is innate. I read all of these guys in my last semester in undergrad, and I read them before that also, a long time ago. — Dharmi

I am not as well-read as others but I love the word "logos" and have a little knowledge of how our brains work based on modern science that Locke and his contemporaries didn't have.

Logos can be interpreted as, reason, the controlling force of the universe, or as order, mathematical order, universal law. Our brains are structured to recognize patterns so I would say our ability to reason is innate. It is not always a conscious process but can happen on a subconscious level, thus the advice to sleep on the problem want to resolve or I find driving is great for processing my thinking. Driving is a distraction that enables some thinking processes to work better and prevents us from having a chokehold on our beliefs if we are opening to questioning things(being narrow-minded).

However, our brains love to play tricks on us and can be very creative, therefore, just because we think something is true, we can not be sure. That is where empirical thinking comes in. We need to check our reasoning with others, and when possible we need to check our reasoning through the scientific process. A problem with believing things on faith is a failure to adequately check the reasoning and this is why the argument is so important! Looking things up in the Bible is not the best way to gain knowledge. Math is the language of God but how many of us are literate in math?

That is, matter can not manifest without organization, and we can observe cause and effect, and with math, discover universal laws. We can use math, and observe, why things are as they are, but we can not be sure our reasoning is correct. We need to use math or the scientific method to check our reasoning, and when there is new information, we need to check our reasoning again, and again. Logos is perfect. Our ability to know of it is not. :grin:

Yes, it was Nicholas's post that pushed me to check my books, so I could move from the familiar to the unfamiliar and got me so excited I want to take action on a summer camp, but I don't like doing things alone. If there were one other person working with me, today I would be exploring for a good place to do the summer camp. I mean Nicholas got me exploring the mathematical connection and I went crazy with excitement. All of the Hermetic thinking can be brought together with math. Do you realize 3 and 9 have been very important to many cultures? Going back to Jung and Campbell and the consciousness we can all tap into, humans everywhere saw something special in 3 and 9. Why? We have 10 fingers, why don't we have a number for 10 that is not a return to the beginning 1?

And if we can understand the math, the archetypes, we have a center for understanding it all.

It's also interesting to note that one argue that both the concept of the nation and the concept of human races in it's modern form developed around the same time frame - the period when Europe transformed from a collection of fragmented kingdoms into nation states, which then started to colonise the globe. — Echarmion

You missed one of the most important divisions, the religious divisions. When everyone had many gods, it may have been easier to get along with people with different gods? But when we get down to one god and this god has favorites and is a war god, then we get people who fight for this god's "power and glory". We get really crazy notions believing this god wants what we want and we can take it from those people who do not know God but have a false god. The US has freedom of religion by law because Christians of different denominations were persecuting and killing each other. Today we just say those Christians who have a different interpretation of the Bible are not really Christians. :lol:

Our brains are far more limited than we want to believe, and we need to identify with small groups to combat the problem of being alone in the crowd and unsure of our identity, worth, and position. This is why we have so many churches. The smaller groups fulfill our need to belong to a small group. In the past, we had many fraternities and social groups that fulfilled this need.

The ideal is absolute non-discrimination based upon race, but if a group becomes oppressed, it makes sense to self promote to overcome that oppression. That is, if one side cheats and that side also controls the refereeing, I don't see how you can condemn the oppressed for not self-sacrificing by being the only ones to adhere to the non-discriminatory ideal. — Hanover

Do you mean like today's war of the sexes? Not only have people of color become super sensitive to discrimination and past injustices, but women, in general, seem to be having the same experience as people of color opposing the oppression they experienced. We have learned to use the word "she" where we always used the word "he". On TV and in my community I see women everywhere and wonder where the men have gone, what jobs are they doing because they are not as visible as they once were?

"Make America Great again" - good.
"Make white people Great again" - bad.

Why is it that nationality talk and Nationalism in particular is so easily acceptable, and race talk and Racism is so difficult and unacceptable?

For the philosopher, it is obvious that they have the same status as social constructs - imposed arbitrary classifications of humanity by humanity.

For the historian, they are pretty much the same thing. From the National Socialists of Hitler, to the famous signs in the UK of my youth "No Blacks, No Irish, no Dogs", to the incident in New Orleans my attention was drawn to recently. And more or less every violent massacre in the world ever.

So why is Nationalism still tolerated and even lauded? Why is the British flag allowed to be be waved all over the place, but the Nazi flag not so much? (Feel free to substitute your own local good and bad flags here.) — unenlightened

It is much easier to understand people killing each other when they look different. I remember when the British and the Irish were being quite violent and killing each other, and in other places, the same thing was happening, and wondering how in the world do all these people see each other was different? Protestants and Catholics killed each other, Christians and Muslims kill each other, Jews and Muslims kill each other, and Sunni and Shia kill each other. Packs of dogs and primate groups fight against each other to defend territory for their own pack or group. I think behaving as other animals is natural, and that it takes special effort to get us to go against our nature and accept "those people" as one of us.

[reply="Nikolas;512381") 9. thus you will possess the light of the whole world, and all obscurity will fly away from you. [/quote]

I have to reply to this again because this morning I am so excited by the number 9. The number goes with the quote for mathematical reasons. I don't really have anything intelligent to say about this, but must repeat, I wish we could gather at a summer camp and one of the things to do would be to explore numbers 3 and 9. It would be fun to use "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe and explore all the numbers, but that would take many days.

How about a Pythagorian Camp and comparing Pythagorian math with Aztec math and life concepts and what this has to do with Hermeticism? You guys are driving me crazy as I am so excited by the discussion we are having and I so much want to gather with like-minded people. I must find away to do this.

Thank you for that information. I am not so sure it is different from other common beliefs of the day. From the East, the many come from the one. I am kicking myself for loosing a copy of the I Ching in a move because now I can not check my memory but vaguely I remember something being said and Heaven and Earth and other opposites blending. How I wish my memory were stronger so I could compare each explanation of "it" and transformation.

Michael S. Schneider's book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe- the Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science" is as a bible to me and I quote...

"Yet, paradoxically, the One is more truly real then the Many. In the visible world of nature all is flux. Everything is either being born or dying or moving between the two processes. Nothing ever achieves the goal of perfection or the state of equilibrium that would allow it to be described in essence. The phenomena of nature, said Plato, are always "becoming", never actually "are". Our five senses tell us that they are real, but the intellect judges differently, reasoning that the One, which is constant, creative, and ever the same, is more entitled to be called real than its ever-fluctuating products." This goes with a concept of numbers that are the language of God and are essential to our understanding of truth.

That is, our idea of this or that is disillusion because it is all fluctuating. I have heard in India it is understood when we speak of one thing we are also speaking of its opposite.

I am currently giving a philosophy summer camp some serious thought. I am thinking perhaps I could make something happen in a small coastal town that is desperate for revenue. I would prefer a year-round establishment, but it would be easiest to promote a summer camp. I need a community that will support the idea as the town's much-needed source of income because I don't have the money to pull this off myself. It would include lectures and discussion groups and massages and meditation. A large building with plenty of land would be nice. At least there needs to be space for camping with facilities for cleanliness and cooking.

What pulls this together for me is you making me aware of Hermetism. I have always wanted to create a retreat but I was thinking along the lines of a spiritual retreat and that idea didn't inspire me as much as working with philosophies around Hermetism and the Greek explanations of happiness inspire me. I like it because of the variety of thought and how it can apply to this moment in time. It is more practical than just spiritualism and that is very appealing to me. I like being more earthy and even global warming and the care of our planet can play into this when we include The Mayan Factor and the book you are reading now.

We are starting to open up and I hope this is not too fast and too soon. •
Lane County, Oregon has a population of 382,067 people and we had 11 new cases of covid. That means we are rated at low risk and can return to almost normal as long as we wear masks and distance ourselves. I don't know how happy I am about this. It means the pool will have twice as many people and I don't like that. I would vote for having the pool all to myself but maybe that is a little selfish?

You are such an exciting person to know because you know so much about so many things. I had to lookup Hermetism and I am blown away by all this involves. I bolded the words that stand out as most important to what is happening today. We are in another period of resistance to the dominance of either pure rationality or doctrinal faith.

In Late Antiquity, Hermetism[18] emerged in parallel with early Christianity, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, the Chaldaean Oracles, and late Orphic and Pythagorean literature. These doctrines were "characterized by a resistance to the dominance of either pure rationality or doctrinal faith."[19] — Wikipedia

I have to add this quote from the same Wikipedia explanation.

Thinkers like Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) supposed that this 'ancient theology' could be reconstructed by studying (what were then considered to be) the most ancient writings still in existence, such as those of Hermes, but also those of, e.g., Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, the 'Chaldeans', or the Kaballah.[11 — Wikipedia

I am excited by Pythagoras, Kaballah, and "The Mayan Factor" because of the use of math in all of them. I would love a summer camp with teachers who could explain each one and then have a comparison study of them. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all of us could meet at such a summer camp?

I have read 'The Mayan Factor,' by Jose Arguelles.
It is an inspiring book. One I am reading at present is 'Cosmic Consciousness,' by Richard Maurice Bucke. He speaks of how in addition to there being 'consciousness of the cosmos there occurs an intellectual enlightenment or illumination which would place the individual on a new plane of existence...' Perhaps this aspect is a central truth underlying the religious quests. — Jack Cummins

Good grief another book I need to read. I so want to know of that of which you speak. At this point in time, it is beyond my comprehension.

How did you come to read "The Mayan Factor"? I think few people have. I was very distressed by how intensely people in science forums rejected the book. But things like harmonics are part of science and worth discussion. Understanding the matrix (any matrix) and how they are used to reveal information seems very important to me. I decided the science community in forums is no better than the church of old with their narrow vision and intolerance of unfamiliar information. I think that narrow vision and intolerance have retarded our sciences and leaves us excessively materialistic.

Ataraxia & aponia (Epicurus) + scientia intuitiva (Spinoza) + amor fati / defiance / beatitude (Nietzsche / Camus / Rosset) ... in other words, momentary lapses in "boredom & pain" which (more often than not) accompany some daily form of play... — 180 Proof

My thoughts of happiness come from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Jefferson

What is Plato's definition of happiness?
Like most other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. That is to say, happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues (aretê: 'excellence') are the requisite skills and dispositions needed to attain it.Sep 16, 2003

Plato's Ethics: An Overview (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu › entries › plato-ethics
Search for: What is Plato's definition of happiness?
What is Aristotle's concept of happiness?
According to Aristotle, happiness consists in achieving, through the course of a whole lifetime, all the goods — health, wealth, knowledge, friends, etc. — that lead to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life. This requires us to make choices, some of which may be very difficult. — Stanford

When I was young and trying to figure life out, I realized my idea of happiness was temporary amusements that really were not satisfying and often left me dissatisfied and wanting more. Then I began gardening and realized accomplishments give us an enduring happiness. I stopped chasing after the temporary happiness and began seeking achievements that become enduring happiness.

I want to reply to here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life.

Without education in philosophy, I think most people misunderstand the US Declaration of Independence and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson based that statement on Plato and Aristotle's understanding of happiness. And those who don't know that, do think happiness is a temporary thing, like seeing a good movie, enjoying ice cream, getting drunk and other things that can lead to suffering. Until we understand happiness as these men did, we do have enduring happiness and good judgment.

I want to thank everyone for your responses. It has filled my heart with hope. From now on I won't be commenting on this post anymore. I'm moving on to more loving things. — TaySan

In case you check in with us, I have enjoyed your post.

Oh my, on my way to the pool I listened to beautiful violin music and thought of what you said and the Greeks focus on beauty and good music and Mayan gods and math. I am hesitant to be open about this because I am in the minority and have been attacked for my thoughts. But let us speak of music and transformation.

There is evidence that classical music results in better plant health. Music has been used for healing people. I certainly felt good as I listened to the music while driving to the pool and with your post in mind my question is- can music transform us? What exactly is transformation? Is it just emotional or also physical?

There is a lot of talk about the plasticity of our brains. Music and also meditation can change our brain waves.

:grin: I have to return to reading "The Mayan Factor" and Jose Arguelles's explanation of the transformation humans and the planet are experiencing. What he says is really far out there and weird to our modern minds, but did he discover a truth we should know?

That is a good thought. I do not know of philosophies that speak directly to the problem of climate change, but the Bible tells us to be good stewards of the land and Islam is very supportive of learning. Perhaps we should make a group effort to bring together all the philosophy and religious notions we can to address the climate change problem. This might make a good thread that stands alone to focus on the one problem we really do need to resolve FAST.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action. — Tom Storm

Yes, our sense of self and our emotions and addictions do become a complicating factor. We do not have to go to the extreme of convicts. Obese people and addicts feel compelled to do what they do. Shoplifting is associated with youthful "catch me if you can" thinking (monkey thinking) and with grief. How about speeding when we drive? :grin: It is hard to be good all the time.

Back to the convict example, I engaged with convicts and I would say at least some of them were confused. One young man was really looking forward to being in the correction system because he thought it meant real correction through education and he knew he was not prepared for life. It really upsets me when an abused woman finally kills her abuser and is put in prison. I don't think that is right.

Can philosophy help these people? I think it can but it has to be learned because this thinking does not come naturally and we all need support from others especially when we are trying to make a personal change. This is why the classics and philosophy or religion are important. Because we can learn to use our minds to live intentionally, to let go of the past and create ourselves as new people. In religion, this called born again. Religion has the benefit of a support group and not so much philosophy, but it is all about learning.

AA groups speak of our higher selves- that part of us that knows better. Well, it might not actually know what philosophy can teach us, but it has a desire to make the right choice. We may lack the strength at first. We may have really bad thinking habits that hold us down. But we all have a higher self that wants to get things right.

Wow-what a nice way of explaining. Are you coming from Eastern culture? And I like what Jack Cummins said about getting beyond binary thinking.

I have an 8 A.M. appointment for swimming and I am going to enjoy so much contemplating what the two of you have said while I exercise. Thank you for a wonderful start to this day.

Perhaps you speak of fast and slow thinking? Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman explains fast and slow thinking.

Most of the time we are in fast thinking mode and automatically do things without thinking. Slow thinking consumes a lot more energy. :lol: After a couple of hours in the forum, I have to take a nap. Slow thinking is the real thinking that separates us from other animals.

Slow thinking is best when we learn the higher-order thinking skills.

Higher-order thinking, known as higher order thinking skills (HOTS), is a concept of education reform based on learning taxonomies (such as Bloom's taxonomy). The idea is that some types of learning require more cognitive processing than others, but also have more generalized benefits. In Bloom's taxonomy, for example, skills involving analysis, evaluation and synthesis (creation of new knowledge) are thought to be of a higher order than the learning of facts and concepts which requires different learning and teaching methods. Higher-order thinking involves the learning of complex judgmental skills such as critical thinking and problem solving.

Higher-order thinking is more difficult to learn or teach but also more valuable because such skills are more likely to be usable in novel situations (i.e., situations other than those in which the skill was learned). — wikipedia

I would say being capable of thinking does not automatically result in good thinking. Education is very important to good thinking.

Let us be clear, reading the Bible does not equal becoming a good thinker. We can hold an understanding of the Bible without higher-order thinking skills. In fact, the 2012 Texas Republic agenda was to prevent education in higher-order thinking skills.

My question is if anyone can explain why they would believe this, and how it’s okay for morality to be subjective. — Franz Liszt

Morality is subjective because we are social animals and live in groups. All social animals must comply with the group's culture or be expelled from the group. Or at least pushed to the outer circle where one is more apt to be eaten by predators.

A moral is a matter of cause and effect and Cicero said we are compelled to do the right thing when we know what it is. We feel uneasy when we do what we believe is wrong. We might comfort ourselves by rationalizing why it is okay to do something we know is wrong but that does not change the fact that we do feel uncomfortable doing what we believe is wrong.

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true. — Tom Storm

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter.

I am not wishing to go into the wilderness of mere relativism, but wish to be aware of the many perspectives because this awareness leads to a certain amount of distance. I don't believe that humanity has overcome the need for religious thinking, because even the most rational scientists have to encounter the unexpected and unpredictable. Perhaps the people who think that they have no moral dilemmas, will get to the point where they feel the guilt of conscience, even though they may not call it 'sin.' — Jack Cummins

That is where I rely on Cicero and the belief that humans are compelled to do the right thing when they know what that is.

We all know shoplifting is wrong but how wrong? When we do wrong, we justify it. As in shoplifting, or paying a worker a wage that is not a livable wage. Capitalism can lead to great inequality and robbing from the rich is not so wrong. It can be seen a fair equalizing. I am not saying that shoplifting is right, but that we justify doing what we know is wrong. Justifying our wrongs proves Cicero is right. We need to see ourselves as the good guys. It is a biologically and psychologically determined fact.

I just read a book about education that is so racist it is shocking that such a book can be rewritten and published in this day and age! The man who wrote the book believes he is doing a good thing. This is where philosophy and science come in! In a democracy, we need to argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. We do not see this as the word of God, but an ongoing process to have, and live by, the best reasoning possible.

Economics - where money and resources are prioritized is almost entirely a reflection of the cultural priorities of a society. — Tom Storm

I am amazed by the huge transfer in wealth we are experiencing with so much money being given to citizens who have done nothing to earn it and telling them to spend it to stimulate the economy. I don't think that has been well thought out and I really want to live long enough to know how this does work out. I don't know if this is caring about the people or a new way of thinking what is best for the economy? I like it a whole lot better than Reagan's denial of people needing help and slashing the domestic budget and pouring money into military spending. But in the Reagan years, our dependency on OPEC oil and OPEC embargoing oil to the US, lead to an economic crash, and at the time the only way to correct that problem was having the military might to take back control of oil and keep it.

Trying to take control of Afghanistan did not go well, and setting up half the people to want to be like the West and leaving them to the mercy of the other half that wants to defend a way of life that is as old as biblical times, is a human crisis that I am very ashamed of.

Is it good human values to destroy the lives of others, so we can have a high standard of living? Once we have intervened, is it morally our responsibility to defend those who want to be as the West? Should we ask families to give up their sons' and daughters' lives in a defense of people on the other side of the world? I am really torn up at the moment because of our role in Afghanstan?

I am wondering about the economic plays and how they fit into human values.