The metaphysical worldview of Platonists like Plotinus, for example, is concentric and hierarchical. Everything emanates from the "centre" of the cosmic circle or sphere and returns by ascending back to it. Hence the terminology of "heart". The "heart" (innermost self) of man is identical to the "heart" of God. Hence Christian and Platonic mystics use similar language. — Apollodorus

Most interesting. I do not mean to be argumentive but the notion of conscious, and our inability to have the consciousness of the past, intrigues me. Do you suppose that was always so for Christians or is it contingent on knowing the Platonists' worldview? Because the Bible was written by Greeks, some of that world view is in the Bible, but people were illiterate and I do not think awareness of the Platonists" world view would be possible for the people of Europe at the time of Rome, nor after Roman fell, until the Reasaunce and printing books spread Aristotle's and Plato's ideas and enabled people to read the Bible for themselves. I think for them, superstition was basic to their Christian worldview, not the Greek philosophy.

Like when we speak of Christianity in the past, that consciousness might be limited to fear of God and fear of Satan and demons and faith in religious icons, burning candles, prayers, and other such religious rituals, but be totally different from Greek influenced consciousness and present-day Christian consciousness.

There are several mysteries which seem essential to the philosophical quest; the existence of God, free will and, life after death. These seem to be central to philosophy. Endless books have been written on these subjects. However, no one seems to have come up with any clear answers, and it seems to me that they remain as unsolved mysteries. We all contemplate these aspects of life, but it does seem that there are no definitive answers. Perhaps the whole aspect of mysteries is central to philosophy and what keeps us searching. Are they unfathomable mysteries, beyond human understanding? — Jack Cummins

We can not have empirical information about God because we do directly experience God.

Some people have died and their hearts have been restarted bringing them back to life, and their stories of their deaths share things in common, but this appears to be more about how brains work than an empirical experience of death. However, we can gather empirical information about dying, so we might come up with empirical information supporting the possibility of life after death. Studying how John Edwards communicates with the deceased provides some convincing arguments that he does actually communicate with the deceased.

On free will, that is a tough one. I think a decision to shoplift or not is a matter of free will, and people have changed their behavior as a result of deciding to do so. However, shoplifting is associated with youthful "catch me if you can" behavior that is common for youth, as opposed to intentional human behavior that one knows is wrong. And shoplifting is associated with grief. That is, we tend to have compulsive behaviors when we are children before our judgment and self-control are developed or when our emotions are strong. This means there is empirical evidence that we can lack self-control in our youth or when emotionally disturb and we should not draw a firm line between having free will or not.

Also, our consciousness is open and we are all imprinted differently depending on our time in history. We can not control the greater forces of our time in history. Therefore it can be argued we lack self-determination and are subject to our time in history.

Our clash with China is basic east and west differences. Our clash with Russia could be the same, as it is argued they are oriental, not western. In India, it is understood when we speak of one thing we also speak of its opposite.

It is egotistical to think Western linear logic is the only possible logic. It is not.

so glad someone brought Star Trek into this. The "group think" paradigm is an interesting way to distinguish our liberal norms to those of the '50s.

To clarify, you are saying the decline of gender roles is linked with the decline of individuality?

Although I love Star Trek, and the example you used, I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Perhaps this is just reflection of my personality and outlook but every classroom, staff meeting or social event I've ever been in feels like a wild West shoot-out of people's ideas. The fastest gun wins. Hell: take this very forum. At the very least I think it shows "group think" is not ubiquitous.

I put it to you that what has changed since the '50s is more people have been empowered, given a voice and have been allowed to enter the fray. I think it's always been a competition, only now we have more players. — BigThoughtDropper

What a delicious argument. :grin: Truth often is not this or that, but it is this and that. I absolutely love how, in an argument, both people are right although their argument looks completely different. Please watch the two Star Treks with an eye for the differences.

Yes, the underlings have less power than when we use group think, and empower everyone. This does not make it right or better. Strong leadership is better than mushy leadership. There is a time and place for us all to work together, but this should not be at the expense of strong leadership!

Societal expectations about gender doesn’t have anything to do with captains of industry, either. The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader - he’s not running the country, so I don’t know what a comparatively ‘high standard of living’ has to do with what he’s working to achieve. Bill Gates, for all his philanthropy, is doing it out of his surplus resources, not his compassion. To follow the example of Bill Gates is to wait until you’re a billionaire before giving. — Possibility

Yes, and without men like Bill Gates (John Wayne), we do not have the industrial wealth that benefits all of us. Being able to educate and feed everyone is a by-product of industrialists taking charge and making things happen. It is not a product of spiritual leaders.

We might admire and envy some indigenous people and their communal living. Their cultures are good for the human soul but do not lead to technology. They would never be able to feed the world as our technology enables us to feed the world. The leaders of their societies are nothing like industrial leaders.

Our notions of what a man is, are very cultural and change. Today if a man wants to be a woman he can use hormones and surgery to physically be more like a woman, and a woman can do the same if she wants to be a man. That thinking would not fly well in our past, nor does it fly well in cultures that have more traditional values.

I challenge this, although I acknowledge that from a recent viewpoint this seems true. Your date of change is about right. A survey of high school yearbooks around that time shows a change from a jacket-and-tie and short haircut conformity to a much more relaxed standard, and in more than dress and personal style. This change occurring in just a few years.

If I have to sum it up, before 1960 students were expected to learn and know and behave, and for the most part, they did. The idea being that they would enter the workplace as young adults and with some competency, school itself being all about that preparation. After 1960, not. None of it. And in the 62 years since, it seems to me that education, having surrendered educating, has not figured out what its business or purpose is. And by now, the educators themselves are, and are from, the uneducated.

What you call "independent thinking" is just application of learned knowledge. It is a shame, and not your fault, that you are (maybe not you personally) so far removed from real independent thinking that you take a basic level of taught competency for it.

I know of what I speak, being of that age. And I know something about independent thinking, both from my own efforts and difficulties with it, and as well from the lack of it in my person and in my community - that being the USA. That is not to say that no one knows how to think, or that everyone is ignorant, but I myself often feel out in the world as I imagine the Jumblies might have felt at sea. — tim wood

That is an interesting observation.

My knowledge of the change was the day all the teachers in my school were in shock. It was very frightening because we were ducking under our desk to survive a nuclear war. :rofl: Actually I think that was about creating fear and preventing any questioning of the changes brought on by the 1958 National Defense Education Act and establishing the Military-Industrial Complex. Anyway, we were living with fear of a nuclear war and those "Godless" communist. :lol: In an afternoon class, a male teacher announced the purpose of education had been changed. We went from transmitting our culture and the US mythology of our forefathers (national heroes) and preparing everyone for good moral judgment and citizenship, to preparing everyone for a technological society with unknown values. That is, in a teacher conference the teachers learn about the implementation of the National Defense Education Act.

My grandmother was a teacher and we were shocked when she walked away from a job. She was working in a private school and the principal interfered with her classroom discipline. I have collected old books about education for many years, and one of them published in the 1960s explains the impersonalness a teacher is to practice, to be sure s/he treats every student the same. This change in policy and "professional" behavior has penetrated all our institutions. I don't think this is the subject of the thread so I will stop here. But I seriously want people to believe what I am saying. We adopted German bureaucracy and German education and the Military-Industrial Complex is firmly established. Bush called this the New World Order and so did another well-known political leader.

I don’t think this has anything to with survival. — Possibility

Hum, what would we want in a captain of the ship or a captain of industry? Bill Gates is a take-charge person and he has accomplished a lot. We might not like how he got to the top, but we have all benefited from what he accomplished.

The Dalai Lama is very different from Bill Gates, and for all the good of his leadership, I don't think his leadership would lead to a high standard of living with schools and hospitals and the industry for a strong economy.

I think the most important thing a person can do is conquer their ego. It's the root cause of a lot of problems, for men and women. I don't think it's possible to totally overcome your ego, but it's possible to minimize it's destructive influence. — RogueAI

An interesting thought, but how responsible is the egoless, person? What can of leader will this person be? As we argue about communism, socialism, or capitalism we might consider the leadership personality of each, and the economic advantages or disadvantages. Would the egoless person be the best captain for our ship?

How might honor and pride play into what is good about being human?

Hi Guys,


I am going to take a wild stab and guess that the male demographic of contributors on this forum are like me: youngish, humanities-educated, and nerdy. (If I am wrong please let me know!)

This is a question about masculinity. Nowadays the "John Wayne" image of the "strong silent" type of man is viewed as being regressive and borderline toxic. And hell: I've never been that; all through high school I was nerdy, non-sporty, and obscure AF. However, due to the working class background of my family, and because of genes that have given me an ironically massive body, I have always had a very strong sense of manhood.

I will briefly summarise the "man code" as it has been handed down to me.

(I am not suggesting that women are not capable of these things. I have met women in my life that embody these attributes a lot better than I ever can. This is a comment on societal expectations.)

As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.

We (male audience, although women very interested to hear opinion) will have different versions of roughly the same code.

My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world? — BigThoughtDropper

I have to draw attention to social change, education, and Star Trek. If you can, watch the original Star Trek and the Second Generation Star Trek. As you said Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space. Captain Picard is not! This is the result of a change in education that has manifested as social change.

Until 1958 we educated for independent thinking. That gets you the John Wayne role model. In 1958 we began education for a technology society with unknown values and "group think" because it is best for the rapid advancement of technology. This is clearly demonstrated with Picard and his crew.

group·think
/ˈɡro͞opˌTHiNGk/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: group-think
the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.
"there's always a danger of groupthink when two leaders are so alike"
Definitions from Oxford Languages — Oxford Languages

We might realize what is happening today is the result of the change in education.

To answer your question. I am very much in favor of men being men and women being women. :grin:

Yes, so conceivably echolocation technology could be embedded into the brain and body so that a person could see (so to speak) with their eyes closed. Things would look different via that sense modality since the information received would be different.

Indeed, empathy depends on recognizing points of difference as well as points of commonality. — Andrew M

You reminded me of the day I went through an art museum with my eyes closed and experiencing everything through touch. Touching was a big no-no but I couldn't stop myself. That was a much more intimate experience with my surroundings than we have by looking at things. I realized when we look at things we keep them at a distance and don't actually experience them, but when we touch, that sensation must travel through our fingers to our brains. I would say with touch, instead of keeping things at a distance, we internalize what we touch.

But then some people think I do drugs. :lol: I don't, but I do think I have times when I experience life differently. I would love to do an art show that is all about touch. When a person came in the person would be given a mask and be invited to experience everything through touch. It would be good if they came with another person who serves as a guide and perhaps they take turns with one using the blindfold and then the other, and communicating with each other their experience.

Now add a tea room for the visitors to the touch art show. Have a fountain with bubbling water and perhaps some birds singing. So people can sit and leisurely communicate their experience, getting in touch with themselves and each other.

Not knowing what it’s like to be something else We don't even know our own experience of life and that we can experience it differently. I think we are all rather numb to life, and living in our heads without a good connection with our bodies and what is around us.

Huh, we do have echolocation technology.

Echolocation And Its Technological Developments - GIS Resources
www.gisresources.com › echolocation-technological

The concept of dispatching a sound into the atmosphere, then calculating the time it takes to echo back is called echolocation. Application of Echolocation In the World Echolocation isn’t only restricted to dolphins. People accommodated this rule into sonar, that sends pings inside the water & listens for the echoes. — Anna Kucirkova

I like

Jack Cummins — Jack Cummins

example of people with mental health problems. Here our bodies are the same but our experience of life is different. I think it is hugely important we know without question that our experience is not the same as another and our understanding of what the other is experiencing is very shallow.

Businesses today are losing a lot of customers because their way of doing business is a huge turn-off and at the same time we seem to be more clueless about turning customers away and why we have serious social problems than ever before! In general sensitivity of another being different and perhaps getting closed out, is at an all-time high! But I have also experienced some people being extremely nice and helpful. When I got my covid shots the folks doing that at the fairgrounds and the football stadium were sooo nice! I have to clarify this because those people involved with covid were different from what is common today, of expecting everyone to understand the technology and the procedure and the policies. One is more personal and people caring about others and this challenge to overcome a serious problem, and the other is excessively impersonal and shuts people out.

This heads toward the 'beetle-in-the-box' idea. How can 'pain' have a public meaning? And yet it does (there are right ways and wrong ways to use the word.) Same with 'red' and 'green' tho there's no way to check raw sensations. But then how does 'raw sensation' or how does 'experience' get public meaning? — j0e

:lol: It would be great if our doctor's understood our pain and the best way to live with it.

I am slightly changing the slant of your question because I wouldn't really want to be a bat, but I think that it is also interesting to to what extent we can really know what it is like to be another person. I am sure that we all try to practice empathy but, to what extent do we REALLY know others' inner worlds, because so much is filtered through our own personal perspective? We may think we understand others, but I am sure in many cases this understanding can be limited by our own experiences. — Jack Cummins

:lol: There are few things I hate more than a young person replying to something I have said about myself with "I understand." No, we do not understand another person's experience especially if we never had an equal experience. I studied gerontology (study of aging) thinking that would become a career for me. I thought I knew something about being old. :lol: Textbooks and working with older people, do not give us the understanding that we gain from personal experience. And The rich and poor do not share the same understanding of reality. The rich do not know the experience of poverty nor does the person who has only known poverty know how it feels to have plenty of money every day of the year. A White person can not know what it is like to be a person of color. Or as a convict once said to me, "You can think shit taste bad but you don't how bad until you eat it."

I agree with you, although most won’t. I think Aristotelian philosophy believed there are ontological distinctions between living and non-living, between animal and vegetative, and between rational and non-rational beings. An ontological distinction means there’s a difference in kind. But these distinctions were discarded along with many other elements of Aristotelianism by modern science, which tends to try and explain everything in terms of matter-energy. Nagel elaborates his point in more detail in his 2012 book Mind and Cosmos where he says that:

The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. — Wayfarer

I believe there are different scientific points of view.

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/03/03/134167145/i-sniff-therefore-i-am-are-dogs-self-conscious

.

You can't possibly know that. [/quote]

I do know something about science and science has studied this question. There is not complete agreement but many animals do not appear capable of identifying themselves in a mirror and the conclusion is they are not self-conscious. Humans do not pass the mirror test until age two.

Dogs have been mirror-tested, and dogs don't pass. Because they're not smart enough to recognize themselves in a mirror, the presumption is they can't think of themselves as unique individuals, so they aren't part of the self-conscious elite in the animal kingdom. — Robert Krulwich

I have no belief in the supernatural but I do recognize the power of myth and the imagination. — Fooloso4

Absolutely! My thoughts on that are being explored in a different thread. In this thread, we base our laws and policies on what we imagine to be true. Is there is a difference between what we imagine is true and what we can know is true?

Anyway the point I tried ham-fistedly to make is that what Nagel calls the ‘subjective character of experience’ is simply a roundabout way of referring, I think, to ‘being’. Humans, and other sentient beings, are beings, and the word ‘being’ has a particular meaning which I think it usually overlooked. After all humans are beings - that’s how we’re referred to - and arguably bats and other mammals are also beings, albeit non-rational beings. Whereas, I would think, tables and chairs are not. Beings are different to inanimate things because they are subjects of experience. I take that to be one of the imports of Nagel’s essay. — Wayfarer

Nicely put. I especially like the distinction between being and inanimate things. That lead me to find "THE ANIMATE AND THE INANIMATE" by WILLIAM JAMES SIDIS https://sidis.net/animate.pdf . It is an online book and I really want a hard copy.

"This theory of life is strictly mechanistic in so far as life is assumed to operate solely under the physical laws applying to the motion of particles, which laws are sufficient to determine a complete chain of causation. On the contrary, physicists, confining their observation entirely to inanimate matter, have reached the conclusion that there is a further physical law, the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which is suspended by living phenomena. There is according to our theory, this essential difference between living and non-living phenomena; and this difference would supply the basis for the idea of "vital force." Thus the two theories of life can be reconciled." — William James Sidis

That looks interesting but we have one more thing to contend with, consciousness. Animals have a degree of consciousness but this is not self-consciousness and does not include the ability to imagine.
It is our ability to imagine that truly separates us from other animals. And 100 years ago no one would have imagined life with personal computers and the internet. Our imagination is built on what we know and we can not unknow what we know. ( :chin: as I worry about having dementia we can forget what we know, but that is a different subject?) What is consciousness? Why can't we know how a bat experiences life? Does our experience of life and therefore consciousness depend on our bodies?

I must add we can not think as the humans who first left Africa thought, nor how humans at any time in history prior to the 21 century thought. We can not unknow the science and history we know and that prevents us from having the consciousness of another our time.

A New Age is a change in consciousness. The 21 century certainly is a New Age and what follows in the next century could once again be a changed consciousness making it impossible for people of the future to be able to relate to the past.

Your sentence calls to mind something I wrote a few years ago, out to Utah and Arizona: — James Riley

I don't know your course of study but by nature, you are a geologist or related science such as anthropology. I believe we are in the "resurrection" only it is manifested by normal humans and science, not supernaturally. Geologists and anthropologists and related sciences are bringing the past into the present and I think it is our job to learn all we can and rethink our understanding of reality.

I like

Banno
11.6k
Natural law as legal hinge propositions... — Banno

When we blend that with the "resurrection" we get something very exciting, and as far know we are the only life form that can do this and the technology of computers and the internet is essential to this expansion of consciousness.

What the Greeks understood by 'reason' is not what the term came to mean for us through modern philosophy. Anaxagoras said 'nous' (mind or intellect) orders the cosmos. Reason is a Latin term, from ratio, used to translate the Greek dianoia, discursive thinking. It differs from noesis, a kind of direct apprehension or seeing with the mind.

What the logos meant for Heraclitus is controversial. When he says: " ... all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos ...", he might mean that the Logos is the guiding force or he could simply mean that what he is about to tell us is the way things are, the truth. Preceding this he begins: "Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it – not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time …".

It should noted that the Greek philosophers, in imitation of the Greek poets, placed the authority of what they said not with themselves but with God or the gods.

In the Phaedo Socrates says that he had been drawn to Anaxagoras' claim that Nous orders all things, but was disappointed to learn that he gave only physical explanations and did not say why things should be the way they are, that is, why it is best that they be this way. Socrates was left on his own to discover what is
best, that is, his "second sailing", his recourse to speech.

It is not divine reason made manifest in speech, but rather, human speech attempting to know what is best. — Fooloso4

I grew up with the notion that songs and stories and inventions are in the universe waiting to be manifest by someone. Such as an idea that its time has come. This goes with Jung's notion of realizing concepts through experience. Humans living in comfortable climates where it is easy to grown food have a diety that provides for them. Human beings who live in harsh climates have a sky god who kills people in snowstorms and does not take care of them, so they live in spite of a god's effort to kill them.

For me what Heraclitus said means that Logos is the guiding force. How I understand logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe does not begin with a reasoner. It begins with universal laws. It is as it is because it can not be otherwise. The reason things stay on the earth is gravity. The reason we hear is both the receptor in our ear paired with brain function and sound vibrations. When we look for the reason of things we get philosophy and then science. We move away from the belief in supernatural beings.

Etymology. Jinn is an Arabic collective noun deriving from the Semitic root JNN (Arabic: جَنّ / جُنّ ‎, jann), whose primary meaning is 'to hide' or 'to adapt'.Some authors interpret the word to mean, literally, 'beings that are concealed from the senses'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn — Wikipedia

This notion could come from the deserts where mirages are apt to happen. However, other cultures independently came with a notion of a trickster and tell about it in folktales. Jinn and tricksters violate the law as we know it.

I do not think Socrates had a concept of a higher authority. He had a concept of "what seems best". He used the word 'logos' to mean to speak, to discuss, or give an account. What seems best is what follows from deliberating together, the stronger argument. It is important to see that the result of such deliberation is not absolute. Socrates reminds us of our ignorance. We are human, not divine beings. — Fooloso4

All Greeks came to a concept of a higher authority. "Logos" is a Greek word meaning reason, the controlling form of the universe made manifest is speech. They came to the idea that even the gods had to submit to the law and this line of reasoning pulled them away from superstition and towards the sciences and democracy. Cicero studied in Athens.

We are as the gods because we have the capacity of reason. Now here is the big argument with Christianity, a religion of miracles. Even the gods were under the law, versus a god who can do anything he wills. Which would you label the more superstitious? Truly we can do far more than Jesus could do, but this is not because of supernatural powers. We can do more than Jesus did because of the power of reason. Not even the Greek gods were all-knowing nor all-powerful and being as the gods does not mean having supernatural power.

What a delicious debate this could become. :grin:

I agree with what you wrote about needing to feel part of something much larger, and perhaps this is what gets lost when we spend so much time logged onto digital devices. I was even reading today that it may contribute to 'brain fog', and I wonder about this. I don't think that we are designed to spend most of our time on computers and mobile phones. — Jack Cummins

But the Internet is vital to our evolution. It is not something we should curse but a manifestation of intelligence far beyond anything humanity has ever experienced before.

:lol: Oh my, this is a little complex. If we believe we are part of something much bigger than ourselves, we can see the internet as kind of a voice of God. It is a man-made miracle where all minds can meet. This of course is overwhelming. Somehow we need to become comfortable with "I do not know" and then making judgments about what serves us well and what does not. This pushes our mental limits and I don't know how well we will succeed, but we need to be inclusive of all of humanity and the all the needs of our planet and different life forms. We are as the gods, now how are we going to manage this?

I like Socrates. You compared him to Martin Luther, while a previous example was made of the difference between Gandhi and Socrates in the formers refusal to obey unjust laws. I like and respect both.

However, I place my fealty first with the land (physical) into which I was born, expanding it then to the Earth, long before I arrive at any tender feelings for the State. I was born, as some in the antinatalist thread might agree, without having been given a choice. The land into which I was born was previously occupied by a State that itself was dependent upon that land, all whilst exercising an unjust, disrespectful, inconsiderate, and brutal control over it. Rape, if you will.

When some of my fellow citizens of the State wrap themselves in it's flag, which they would deny to any who disagree with them, and suggest I leave if I don't like it, they fail to understand that for me, the name we use to describe this land "America" or the "United States" refers first to my home, which they occupy, and I have no intention of leaving.

It just so happens that when we finally move out from the land to other, much less important things like the State, I do happen to hold a grudging respect, and even love for her aspirations and ideals; as they are articulated in her organic documents, as well as in Natural Law. I happen to think she has promise, and that she is deserving of defense. And she is much better than some alternatives. But I think she would do well to remember her place in the order of things. She should remember how much of what she was and is is totally dependent upon the place over which she exercises "control" and much less on some exceptionalism imputed to her citizens. In theory she is one thing, but in practice she is often just the biggest fucking bully on the play ground. Sovereign? Yes, but in my book, might does not make right. It may be the way things are, but that doesn't make it right.

So yes, Socrates, the "State" is worthy of some consideration. But it has to earn it, prove it. And remember that there are other things in this world too. — James Riley

Gandi is a great example of non-cooperation with unjust power. But what followed has been as poorly thought out as the hippie movement.

You write beautifully!

You write of two separate things. DEMOCRACY which is a totally awesome social organization beginning with Athens, which advances civilization, and the Military-Industrial Complex the US became after defeating it in Germany. The US was the modern Athens and Germany the modern Sparta.

Surely that of which you object to is not rule by reason. That for which the US stood is not what the US stands for today. The same thing happened to Athens when its defense against Persia succeeded. Its military power went to its head and it could not let go of its desire for money which it became accustomed to when collecting from all the city-states for protection. It resorted to using force to collect tribute and united city-states against Athens.

We helped the allies win WWI and WWII and then became what we defended our democracy against. The US is now the Military Industry Complex it defeated and much of the world is uniting against US control of global resources. On a finite planet, this is a serious problem. The standard of living in the US is not globally sustainable.

Books about geology might complement your argument. I especially like Youngquist's book "Mineral Resources and the destiny of Nations".

I admire Cicero very much. I'm a Ciceronian, after all. But Cicero knew there was a difference between the laws of Rome and the laws of Nature, and would not have confused the two or thought that the laws of Rome did not exist unless they conformed to the laws of Nature. He would simply have claimed that laws which did not conform with those of Nature should be changed, or should not be adopted.

I think there are laws that should be changed. But I don't think the fact they should be changed means that they don't exist or aren't laws. — Ciceronianus the White

Exactly, the pope and the church do not rightly have all the authority to make laws, and kings who do not understand the higher law, do not have the questioned right to rule. Everything we value in a democracy rests on the notion of a higher law and the need to comply with it. But without education for democracy, we get reactionary politics based on personal preferences and greed instead of on principles. Power politics such as we have today is destroying our democracy and the only way to correct that problem is through education.

A law or rule of authority that opposes the higher law, will bring down the civilization. Socrates gave his life for his democracy. I think we need to get back to this thinking. It is obvious the racial issues we have today resulted from excluding people of color. Socrates said it may take 3 generations but sooner or later those who are wronged will become a burden on society. We had laws that brought us to trouble, and that is not rightly a law. A democracy is about solving such problems peacefully. Democracy is rule by reason and consensus, not rule by feelings and those who are in power. How bloody stupid to replace presidents who totally destroy the accomplishments of the previous president and put their opposing policies into force. That is not rule by reason. The Bible, Industry, and the Military are about autocracy and the autocrats got ahold of education and used it to produce products for industry instead of preparing the young for citizenship as it once did. Rule by man-made law and police force destroys liberty and that destroys what democracy is all about.

I would imagine that the big questions must be becoming increasingly difficult for children, with so much information available, especially on the internet. There is just so much, and I would imagine that parents, who are probably struggling to find beliefs, must have such a hard time showing their children through the maze. I am not sure whether some clear beliefs or the best option. I am sure that it varies so much. — Jack Cummins

Parents do not have the power of social pressure. This is unfortunate when society is becoming amoral and immoral, and everyone is ruled by their feelings, not principles. On the other hand, it is very fortunate when the parents themselves are immoral people, and children chose social values instead of the way of the parents.

The rules for life are not that complicated. It is not difficult for grade schools to teach a set of principles, traditions, and customs that hold civilization together. I think we have gone a little overboard with education for technology and took our civilizations for granted. We need to return to education that advances civilization not just the power of computers and weapons.

It seems a week does not go by without hearing of yet another person killed by police, and another riot that threatens civil order. I think we live in volatile times demanding strong action. I think family order is basic to civil order and our technological society has been self-destructive. Judging the man, separate from judging the times in which he acts, is lacking in important information.

Reading your words I immediately thought of all the healthy flesh removed from me when the doctor cut out the cancer. I think there are circumstances when destruction is a necessary part of the good. To be clear, the action is more about the circumstances than the man. It would be prudent for us to look at the importance of culture and the best way to transmit a desirable culture that returns us to civil order. Like a healthy diet can protect us from some cancers, strong family values can manifest strong social order without a strong police force. When people rely too much on laws and a strong police force, there will be serious problems. Cicero lived in volatile times.

It seems, on reflection, what I was attempting wasn't to provide a actual proofs for god, free will, and life after death. What I aimed to do though was suggest some avenues of inquiry and offer plausible reasons as to why some of us are of the view that god, free will, and life after death exist. My intention was not so much to come up with good arguments as it was to explore, examine the conspicuous absence of such in these domains of metaphysics. — TheMadFool

We do not directly experience "God" so we can not know God. We can know the manifestation of God, Tao, logos because we experience that. We can know something of the past and the future, and in that way, we are like the gods, and with that comes responsibility for our words and deeds. We are a part of something much bigger than ourselves, and only with knowledge and wisdom can we have good judgment.

I think a common human problem is not recognizing we are part of something bigger than ourselves. On one level we are part of a family. We might be members of a church or some other organization. We are part of a community and then a nation and then the whole of humanity and the earth with all its creatures large and small. What matters is how I impact the larger whole and future generations. My ego really does not matter. My special place in a heaven does not matter. I am part of something much larger. :pray:

None of those are unanswerable. The question of whether god exists is answered, its just people who believe in god and certain types of fence sitters still carry on regardless, attached for whatever reason to the indefensible believer position.
Free will is a bit trickier I’ll grant you but I feel like its mostly a problem of definition of free will. If its defined as something outside deterministic forces, cause and effect but if the definition isnt magical and accounts for deterministic forces then sure, free will exists. As Hitchens used to say, we have free will becuase we have no choice
Lastly, life after death. Like god, this has been asked and answered. No, we have no good reasons to think there is life after death.
There is certainly things beyond human understanding, but none of the things you mentioned are. All understandable, all have fairly clear answers. Whether or not those answers can overcome indoctrinated belief or strong emotional bias is another matter. — DingoJones

What matters to me is what my children and their children and their children's children will experience. Socrates gave his life for a future better than the reality of his day. For me, there is no higher purpose.

And if I'm on the right track, then my question would be, how as a member of a civil society do you hold yourself superior to it? — tim wood

Socrates did not hold himself superior to civil society, but he did have a concept of a higher authority. We use the word "God" for the higher authority. We could use words like logos and Tao. I really like Socrates' reasoning, especially as things appear to be falling apart today, the breakdown of family order and the civil unrest that is violent and destructive.

The first argument Socrates makes about obeying law is that every citizen has an obligation to the society they live in to obey its laws. The laws are to be more honored than your mother or father (Crito 51a). He also argues that to bring violence or disobedience to your country is seen as more dishonor than disrespecting your patents (Crito 51c). Socrates believed that you were not only a product of your parents, but because you were raised in Athens, you were also a servant to Athens as were your parents and their parents before them (Crito 50e). — tunetown187

I think Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and rule by reason. He could have gotten out of trouble by agreeing to stop talking about the things he believed we should talk about. He could have fled as Martin Luther did. He gave his life for a higher cause than his own life.

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering). — baker

I really like your post. Confucius explains the importance of virtues and Tao is the way. I think it is unfortunate Western civilization became so separate from Eastern. It was not so separate in antiquity.

Founding fathers must have been reading Cicero. — James Riley

Absolutely and so did the philosophers and anyone who wanted to be educated. That would be an important part of liberal or classical education. Cicero is more responsible for our reality today than Jesus.

Among Cicero's admirers were Desiderius Erasmus, Martin Luther, and John Locke.[130] Following the invention of Johannes Gutenberg's printing press, De Officiis was the second book printed in Europe, after the Gutenberg Bible. Scholars note Cicero's influence on the rebirth of religious toleration in the 17th century.[131]

Cicero was especially popular with the Philosophes of the 18th century, including Edward Gibbon, Diderot, David Hume, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.[132] Gibbon wrote of his first experience reading the author's collective works thus: "I tasted the beauty of the language; I breathed the spirit of freedom; and I imbibed from his precepts and examples the public and private sense of a man...after finishing the great author, a library of eloquence and reason, I formed a more extensive plan of reviewing the Latin classics..."[133] Voltaire called Cicero "the greatest as well as the most elegant of Roman philosophers" and even staged a play based on Cicero's role in the Catilinarian conspiracy, called Rome Sauvée, ou Catilina, to "make young people who go to the theatre acquainted with Cicero."[134] Voltaire was spurred to pen the drama as a rebuff to his rival Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon's own play Catilina, which had portrayed Cicero as a coward and villain who hypocritically married his own daughter to Catiline.[135] Montesquieu produced his "Discourse on Cicero" in 1717, in which he heaped praise on the author because he rescued "philosophy from the hands of scholars, and freed it from the confusion of a foreign language".[136] Montesquieu went on to declare that Cicero was "of all the ancients, the one who had the most personal merit, and whom I would prefer to resemble."[135][137]

Internationally, Cicero the republican inspired the Founding Fathers of the United States and the revolutionaries of the French Revolution.[138] John Adams said, "As all the ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher united than Cicero, his authority should have great weight."[139] Jefferson names Cicero as one of a handful of major figures who contributed to a tradition "of public right" that informed his draft of the Declaration of Independence and shaped American understandings of "the common sense" basis for the right of revolution.[140] Camille Desmoulins said of the French republicans in 1789 that they were "mostly young people who, nourished by the reading of Cicero at school, had become passionate enthusiasts for liberty".[141 — Wikipedia

I find myself unable to accept the proposition that the law is whatever each of us thinks is not stupid, or not wrong. — Ciceronianus the White

I was impressed by what Cicero had to say about the law. This quote refers to "God" so I need to say he predates Christianity. A better word for his concept of God might be "logos".

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and at all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero — Cicero

Even without the sensory faculties, your ability to experience hunger & thirst, emotions, your hormonal operations would not be compromised and so on. — Judaka

That is a good point. Our bodies know a lot that we are not aware of. On top of that, most of our driving is done automatically. Our brains take a lot of shortcuts to reduce the amount of thinking we do. So now we have information without awareness of that information. This goes with self-talk and healing and the placebo effect. Then there are people with apparently no self-awareness. I think we are questioning our consciousness? We can perceive information without being fully aware of it and we can use our thoughts to influence our bodily functions and the direction our thoughts take.

This may sound like a ridiculous scenario but bare with me. I understand I am transitioning away from the topic of spirituality to more like science fiction but “When in Rome” right?

I disagree with that statement due to the possibility of telepathic communication and how it may exist now through nature. This presumption was brought on because scientists discovered evidence of its existence through there research.

This discovery or potential of this discovery may change how we perceive reality.

If telepathic communication is possible then sensory input may become obsolete or not necessary to perceive reality.


“Scientists Prove That Telepathic Communication Is Within Reach“ — SteveMinjares

I totally welcome creative thinking, we could not land on the moon or explore Mars without it. Right now too many people behave like the church of old when it tried to be the sole authority over what we think. What fools these people are to restrict discussions to technological correctness as they know all that is important to know. Not only is that an excessively high opinion of what we know, but it would stop any further advancement if people didn't dare to think beyond the limits of common thought.

I believe we call telepathy a 5th sense? I am not sure how different thought waves are from sound waves and all the wireless digital information our computers and cell phones receive? I think there are so many mysteries we are better off enjoying them than we would be if some idiots had the power to restrict what we think about. And when it comes to telepathy there is a lot that indicates we should give it more attention.

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; it doesn't explain it. It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation.

What say you to that, if anything?

I say: There is no Law but the Law! — Ciceronianus the White

There are laws of nature and then there are man-made laws. I think it can be argued many human laws are just stupid ideas and not really laws. Democracy is about getting rid of stupid ideas and having rule by reason. That is laws must be proven good reasoning and do not stand if they are just stupid ideas. Such as outlawing interracial marriages or homosexual relationships is just stupid and has nothing to do with laws of nature. Whereas laws about actions to prevent the spread of disease are based on the laws of nature and to reject them is being stupid.

The answer to the question is no. No sensation, no reasoning of any kind is possible. Rocks do not reason. No reasoning no argument for validation is possible.

A school is a kind of social institute, but in this case I was referring to a government, though I do draw parallels between education and governance in my overall philosophy. — Pfhorrest

Well, Pfhorrest, it is my understanding there are two ways to have social order, law and authority over the people, or culture. All mythologies give people cultures for conduct. Culture a good person behaves this way and not that way. With culture, it is social pressure that keeps people in line.

I am reading a book that might say hedonism before the time of Socrates would be different than after the period of Socrates, because of how people, in general, thought, fundamentally changed. When the god Apollo became part of Athenian consciousness, culturally there was much more reasoning. This demand for reasoning followed a period that was chaotic and with much uncertainty.

Without the word generosity, we can not exactly have the virtue of generosity. We might be moved to give but it is not with a perceived idea that we should be giving. With reasoning, hedonism is the result of reasoning, not just impulsive reactions.

Well, if labor creates all wealth, the guy who taps the computer at the central bank and creates a few billion dollars with a few keystrokes must be the most laborious. — ssu

:lol: Anyone who works that hard will need a vacation to recover.

Didn't people have a lot more free time back in the day? It seems like to me that the machines that we use in agriculture (etc) require a more complex society, with everyone working more. Or perhaps rather, just more people. Instead of most everyone working the fields, there is a minority of farmers who use equipment, which is manufactured in a factory the employs many people, which gets materials from other factories, etc. — darthbarracuda

Oh ouch, labor-intense societies do not enjoy a lot of free time. Before we perfected our machinery, people, including children, worked 12 to 14 hour days, 7 days a week, for poverty wages, forcing the family to put their children into dangerous mines and factories.

:lol: Try growing a garden large enough to feed a family for a year and after harvesting it, preserve the food so it will last a year. This fun experiment is even better if you are a woman with children because then you must attend to them and clean the house and make the clothes by hand and make your own soap and do laundry by hand. Try that for about a year and then tell us about your free time.

So your example is only true if society demanded the labor for both T-shirt making and hat making equally. — FlaccidDoor

I want to see if I understand you correctly. When millions of people want T-shirts that increase the value of the T-shirt. If only a few people wear hats, they don't have much value. Is that right according to the theory?

When Russia was coming out of communism I thought they didn't get things exactly right. Potatoes should be very cheap so everyone can afford them. However, when the potatoes are processed to be instant potatoes or potato chips, you can charge as much as the market can handle without hurting the need to feed people. Changing the raw potato is value-added. Is that right?

Except the US government can buy the potatoes and turn them into instant potatoes increasing their shelf life and this surplus of potatoes reduces the cost. That is supply and demand, right?

When 500 people in a factory can produce many times more product than individuals working alone n small shops, the cost of labor is low and so the price of the product. Some products would be unaffordable without factories making mass production possible. How does Marx handle that?