I never mentioned my contemplation of reincarnation to anyone at the time because I was in a Catholic family and school, with set views, mainly of resurrection at the end of the world. I would have been told off for thinking nonsense, and it is likely that readers of this site may accuse me of talking nonsense too. — Jack Cummins

I have a very old book about logic and it clearly states we should never be too sure about what we think we know. A wise person maintains doubt. I have a big problem with religious people who think they can know God's truth and that anyone who does not agree with them is wrong. I once read, when we think we know God, we know God not. The Bible says God is beyond our comprehension and the religious folks keep making their notion of God comprehensible, rather than remain open-minded. From there, things can get really bad as some people are willing to kill for their notion of God to be the only one.

Some have argued Jesus spoke of reincarnation and I believe knowledge of Buddha improves our knowledge of Jesus because I believe Jesus's thinking was more oriental than western and culturally we are separated from oriental thinking.

Roman was very materialistic and the result is flipping the Egyptian trinity of being spiritual beings, into a trinity of God. The Egyptian trinity is more like we are spiritual beings having a human experience. One part dies with the body, one part goes on to be judged and may entire the good life or not, and always the third part returns to the source. The trinity of God denies our spirituality but has to impose a notion of souls? In Christianity, the trinity is God, Son, and Holy Ghost. I really do not comprehend Christian thinking, because to me the religion is dependent on believing in supernatural beings, but Christians see themselves as opposed to superstition. That is a little nuts to me. A new word had to be invented for the Romans to accept the trinity of God. Greeks had a word for the trinity but not Romans and for many years Christians warred against each other over the issue if Jesus was the son of God or God Himself.

Anyway back to reincarnation. Jesus made a statement about my father has many rooms and we enter and leave those rooms. That can be taken as a reference to reincarnation. There was a time when Buddhism and Catholicism came close to combining. The difference between eastern spiritism and western materialism with supernatural beings pasted on, holds the beliefs apart.

Same thing that happens when an orchestra (e.g. a brain) stops playing and its members (e.g. neurons) irreversibly-irreparably disband, namely the music (e.g. consciousness) simply ceases. — 180 Proof

That is very materialistic when reality is all about energy.

'all things as infinite.' — Jack Cummins

My goodness, this thread is trigging so many memories that I have not thought about for a long time. I am having a delightful time. I am also thinking I should write this stuff down because I want to be aware of some memories and I can not trust my brain to be aware of fading memories.

I had a few spontaneous transcendental experiences many years ago that strongly impacted what I believe about life. One such experience was to have no identity of my own but to think I am one with the fence, one with the field, one with the convict in prison, etc.... one with the universe. As you said, that experience gives me reason to believe you are right to refer to those who said our brains function to filter out information.

My suspicion is that life is cyclical, and the microcosmic resembles the macrocosmic. We sleep, dream, and wake up, consciousness being a continuum of memory. The bigger sleep, death and birth, will be similar. What science calls genetics, would be a continuum of memory from previous life/death cycles. Basically, I believe the Universe is symmetrical in all respects. Clues to the macro can be found in observing the micro. This is what Daoists do. Interestingly, Hamlet's soliloquy alludes to this idea. I think that if we pass on with good memories, we will enjoy a nice deep sleep. The concept of Karma adopts a similar point of view. — MondoR

You triggered my memory of reading about genetic memory. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/genetic-memory-how-we-know-things-we-never-learned/

I think I may have a memory of past incarnations? Not much and the one just before this one seems the most complete. I am not the only person who seems to live with a memory of a previous life. I have contemplated this for a while and decided in order to have new lives, we must forget the past one. I would not want to repeat my present life but would love it if somehow I were born again and retained the knowledge I gain from intentional studying. This totally brings into question who am I if I come to life as different people with different life experiences and possibly retain some memory of each lifetime without being the same personality as the one before? Sort of like we are sitting in a theater and watching one movie after another. We experience each movie but do not end with each movie. :brow:

To be or not to be?

I am amused by the religious notion of god and love as this also goes with wanting to maintain the separation of ego, rather them being one with god.

I am totally undecided about the afterlife thing. I watched shows done by men who claim to communicate with those who have crossed over. I think what these men did is very convincing about there being life after death and that we retain our egos and relationships. But I would not bet my life on our egos surviving our deaths. I have also experienced what appeared to be communications from those who have crossed over, adding to my belief that it is possible. I think statement is the most reasonable. We do not have enough information to believe this or that.

Yes, the Adam Smith quote comes from that time in history when international laws were not well established. A positive effect of piracy was uniting merchants in favor of laws and mutual protection against pirates. A main reason for early migration to the New Land was to get away from the king's and the landlords' control of economic activity. The natural right being to actualize one's potential instead of being held under the authority of the church, kings, and landlords.

As for the hate speech, we can begin with the universal do unto others as you would have them do to you, and don't do unto others as you would not have them do to you. Hate speech is going to cause trouble, so it is just wrong, and because it is wrong, it is not right. We can not tolerate wrongs because of the damage they do.

Our laws might not be absolute but I believe cause and effect are consistent, which focuses me on Cicero. I love his explanation that no prayers, animal sacrifices, or rituals are going to change the consequences of our actions. Man-made laws may be ignorant of natural laws and for this reason, we must have freedom of speech to correct faulty reasoning.

Perhaps you could tell me more about parallel universes as a possibility beyond the mortality of the physical body. — Jack Cummins

This would possibly require a notion of neutrinos holding a record of our existence because it seems to assume there is an "I' that can be aware. If there is an "I" there must be matter that contains the "I".

↪Jack Cummins Like a sugar cube in tea, it dissolves, and rather quickly. The trick, it seems to me, lies in not minding too much the dissolution. After all, one may ask what there isn't, after, and be hard pressed to answer. Consciousness? And what exactly is that when it's not at home? — tim wood

That sounds reasonable to me and that would make us with one with the universe minus our egos that keep us separate.

I agree with you but stopping with an agreement kills the thread. It kind of depends on how we understand the law. Not all laws are written and it could be interesting to put Cicero's words in a Bible.:grin:

“For there is but one essential justice which cements society, and one law which establishes this justice. This law is right reason, which is the true rule of all commandments and prohibitions. Whoever neglects this law, whether written or unwritten, is necessarily unjust and wicked.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Laws

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero

Hate speech does not lead to justice, does it? Hate speech is harmful is it not? That which is harmful is immoral and must not be tolerated or the whole nation falls into immorality. This is a higher law based on right reason. On the other hand, our freedom to reason is different from hate speech, isn't it? In the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" Daniel Kahneman, differentiates an automatic reaction from thinking. This makes freedom to reason different from saying anything we want to say.

Adam Smith is working with Cicero's understanding of law and justice. In the quote he is speaking of the British attempted to control trading, protecting a few with exclusive trading rights from the many wanting to engage in trading. He is holding an idea of natural law and justice that is right reasoning but not the written law.

"Thirdly, the hope of evading such taxes by smuggling gives frequent occasion to the forfeitures and other penalties, which entirely ruin the smuggler; a person who, though no doubt highly blameable for violating the laws of his country, is frequently incapable of violating those of natural justice, and would have been in every respect, an excellent citizen." Adam Smith

So am I. But those rights exist only to the extent they arise from the law. Even if they do, I think it's clear enough that other people, if not the government, would gladly trample on your rights or mine if they saw fit to do so, particularly if they felt their rights were threatened in some self-serving manner. Their rights may not be restricted; if they conflict with those of others, why should those rights be considered superior to their rights? What standard is to be applied when rights conflict, apart from a legal standard? If there is a standard to be applied in that case it must be one based on something other than the rights themselves, which indicates that a theory of morality based on supposed natural or inherent rights is lacking. — Ciceronianus the White

China is arresting people who say things China's leadership does not want to be said. So a government does not have to protect freedom of speech, or does it? There are universal laws and man laws. Is denying people the right to speak going to make things better or worse?

Prussian military order is a few establish the policy and then they can all be killed, but the policy is still in force.
— Athena

But the cause is still those few who established the policies. I think we should move away from blaming things like society or policies, and towards the people who create/perpetuate them. If the point of ascribing blame is to create change, then the focus should be narrow. Society encompasses many things, some good, some bad, but when we blame society as a whole the good seems to be overlooked, or overshadowed by whatever we’re railing against to be changed. We don’t want the entire society to change (at least not usually), we want particular parts of it to change that are created/ spurred on by particular people. It’s those people that need to change, not some abstract notion of society. — Pinprick

I spoke of how a society can be organized. Individuals do not have power when it is Prussian military bureaucracy organizing the society. We fought two world wars against that because it is not compatible with the past US concept of individuality and democracy. Then the US imitated German education and bureaucracy and became what it defended its democracy against. We could also consider China that is very controlling of individuals and made an art of manipulating the behavior of individuals. Those are totally different ways of controlling people. The Prussian method can lead to brutishness. The Chinese method can lead to very decile people.

Effectively that is what we have but the parts of a computer are organic. The parts are humans following policy and who expect everyone to follow policy.
— Athena

But there is still no need to be complicit in a system you feel is corrupt. Following orders aren’t the only option you have. And no, you’re very unlikely to have the power to change or influence much beyond your personal inner circle, but that’s precisely how change takes place over time. It just takes a lot of people, and a lot of time being the change they wish to see in the world, to paraphrase Gandhi. [1quote]

Is there a way to use the internet and avoid all the corruption? In the beginning of the web we retained control but we have totally lost it and nothing is being done about that. Changing education seems impossible when everyone is convinced we have excellent education and can not see what it has to do with becoming a police state. If a person has the money and power of Bill Gates people will turn to this person for advise, but being one rebellious individual does not seem to be working so well for me.

And the very powerful media people are not being responsible people, but total prostitutes doing whatever it takes to accumulate wealth.
— Athena

Perfect! This is a good example of what I mean. Holding particular people responsible, rather than just “the media.”

But until we return to liberal education, the people will not have the awareness nor the power to set things right.

And that could well be what is meant, in which case the duties nature imposes on us become purely negative--we should not infringe on someone else's right to property, right to free speech, right to life, etc. — Ciceronianus the White

I saw a show last night that makes me think I should concede to you and say any ideas of rights and duties are man-made. We can realize them and live by them, but nature does not force us to do either. We can remain brutish and treat each other very badly and survive. I think I was arguing out of my bias, not totally fact-based. However, I am extremely thankful that I live in a society where at least half the people believe we have rights.

But if we assume we have duties I don't see them as negatives. The virtues are positives. Hopefully, we have people who have the courage to stand up for what they believe is right. We may have the duty to be honest and we might see leadership that lies to us as very dangerous. Our liberty is the right to decide what is the right thing and only highly moral people can have liberty. Oh dear, I am back in the argument that we have to get it right if things are going to be good. But nature will let us get away with being brutish.

↪Brett Just trying to help the guy in the improbable case he is actually not just promoting and actually interested in discussion since the topic isn't completely useless... foolish hope, I guess.

Probably should stop replying since the potential promoter seems to no longer be active and we shouldn't make his promotion more visible. — Qmeri

I have empathy for anyone who wants us to read a book so it can be discussed. Complex concepts are not easily put in simple posts and it can be futile to discuss some things when others do not have an adequate background for understanding.

↪Ciceronianus the White I've always understood it as reciprocity. If you believe you have a right and wish to have that respected, you have a dirty to respect another's same right. My right to property implies a duty to respect yours, if I don't I can't expect you to respect mine and the system collapses. — Benkei

"Reciprocity" is a good word.

Above is the mention of the word "virtues" and in the past, we thought "virtues" is a synonym for "strength". If we perform the duty we are strengthened in virtue.

Then I must have misunderstood. You seemed to be saying duties derive from rights. I don't think they do, unless "duties" consist solely of the duty not to infringe on the rights of others — Ciceronianus the White

I will quote from an explanation of Confucius.

"A character disciplined by ren (love) is the ideal in morality and goal of education. How do we attain this goal? In the Analects Confusius provided a very clear answer: the transformational process leading to the realization of ren is the practice of li. The English translation of li has been "rites," "ritual," "proprieties," "ceremonies," "courtesy," "good manners," "politeness." and so on."

I am calling all of the above "duties". To be transitioned to a higher form of human we must perform our duties, the same as we must nourish our bodies with food and water, exercise and sleep. Failure to do so is to remain as a base human, always experiencing need and unpleasantness, lack of love. It does not stop at not hurting others, because it is about how we develop ourselves and experience life.

I disagree. Ancient Western thinkers--I mean Greeks and Romans--felt that what was appropriate according to natural law could be determined in part from the fact that we're social animals. It's our nature to live in communities. It's a view which is, I think, foreign to the view that we're by nature individuals, each with inalienable rights; in effect, antisocial animals. The individual is of primary importance and is to be protected from the community (and government) according to the modern conception of human rights. There are no obligations to be considerate, or kind, or noble, or honorable towards others, or even to be honest. One need only forego violating their rights. — Ciceronianus the White

:grimace: What you said is true and is why I make my arguments! The Greeks held that the purpose of birds is to fly, horses run, and humans think, right? The polis is natural to humans, and during this pandemic that should be obvious to everyone. We hate isolation! Some of us also hate overcrowding and living in a multiple story apartment is not my idea of a good life. But most of us would choose the apartment over too much isolation. My X kept the family isolated and I thought I was going to loose my mind. That was before computers and the internet and I feel so sorry for all the pioneer women who lived on farms miles from others and lucky if they could go to church once a week. So we think and we need each other.

I would say, we also need all those values of which you spoke and the Greeks strived for human excellence. I think humanity is far better off when the culture promotes those values and motivates people to be the best they can be. This is truly the point of democracy. It is the dream of the enlightenment that we lift ourselves out of the dirt and do a little better than beings made of mud and born in sin.

Our liberty is the right to decide the right thing, not the right to say or do anything we please with no more self-control than a 3-year-old.

If I was violent, and there was a place where violence was not punished (or rarely/lightly punished), I would prefer to be there. So would everyone else like me.
— Pinprick — BitconnectCarlos

Good then become a police officer or a guard in a prison. The military is also an option.

Now that you mention it, I recall someone saying, "it's society's fault" and I'm not sure whether fae meant it in a way that you seem to be implying to wit that society is some kind of an individual entity like a person is, capable of causally potent intentions and actions independent of, and sometimes contrary to, its individual members, viz. us. — TheMadFool

Individual power and authority is like a grain of sand, society is the beach and waves.

An interesting fact that's germane to the issue herein is that societies and groups in general appear to be more rational than individuals and by that I mean to point out a truth that's hard to miss viz. unity is a better choice than division under almost all circumstances our world has to offer.

The US is no longer the democracy it once was. In 1958 the National Defense Education Act, ending transmitting a culture base on Greek and Roman classes, and began preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values. Bush and Bush jr. were thrilled to be in charge of the New World Order and that came from Germany. It was not the American Dream the came out of the Enlightenment. This individual does not have much independent power but is prepared for life by society.

Framed in this context, it's easy to see that a claim like "it's society's fault" makes sense only in the case of society applying a negative selection pressure on certain individual predelictions and that in turn causing negative pyschological effects down the line that manifests in myriad ways at the individual level.

My books on the history of education explain education can serve different purposes. Since primitive times the young have been prepared for membership in the tribe-all the way to citizenship in the nation. The society may be more mystical than technological. Those based on religion may make the development of secular/scientific thinking near impossible. I think our education for technology has been dehumanizing, and it advanced military technology not the humanistic goals of the Enlightenment.

At the heart of the relationship between individuals and the societies is the push and pull between rationality and our passions. The former analyzes the passions, selects and nurtures those that benefit everyone and the latter simply does what it does and, most importantly, sometimes puts individuals in a position to reject, defy, go against, the interests of society and that lays the the foundation for attitudes and realities captured by the statement "it's society's fault". Intriiguingly and ironically, there seem to be occasions (played out in courts, committees, tribunals, etc.) on which the reverse accusation, "it's the individual's fault", is made by society.

We come into life blank slates and society fills us with thoughts. Each country having its own culture, and each culture having its own consciousness and unconsciousness. We are mostly unaware of how our cultures and subcultures impact our lives. Few of us will be conscious enough to master our lives and even fewer will impact the cultures in which we live in. Many will be rejected and marginalized and totally ineffective.

↪Pinprick Yes, but also...we enter cultures. And we come without culture. And some cultures probably suit us better than others, each having strengths and weaknesses. Culture is the mixed batch compromise of people who have gone before us, filtered through POWER. That is the goals and ideas that the powerful want most people to have. And that also may cause us problems. — Coben

I think the US is in a culture war. Trump and Biden are very different leaders and the nation is almost evenly divided on which leader the people want. And the very powerful media people are not being responsible people, but total prostitutes doing whatever it takes to accumulate wealth.

I've always understood it as reciprocity. If you believe you have a right and wish to have that respected, you have a dirty to respect another's same right. My right to property implies a duty to respect yours, if I don't I can't expect you to respect mine and the system collapses.
— Benkei — Ciceronianus the White

I find it hard to find the right words to explain how that works, but you made the point I am trying to make. "Reciprocity" is a good word.

In reading old textbooks, I think there was a time when that concept came through education. Old textbooks taught consideration of others. One flat out says, a rich person may not be happy in a way to make someone with less feel good about what s/he has and ware of others. Money doesn't always make people happy. And it explained a rich person has an obligation to share as the farmer shares a surplus of food. That sharing is giving back a small portion of what one has received and hopefully, there is some intrinsic happiness in sharing.

An old health book said when someone comes to your home, you should focus on making that person comfortable and when you visit someone, you should focus on getting along with the people in that home. That is always being considerate of others, and not putting oneself first. We built a culture on virtues that seem to be forgotten in the present as education dropped interest in the humanities and focused on technology and competitiveness.

The questions I'm (now!) trying to pursue (which I think are still pertinent to this thread) are--assuming there are natural rights, in what sense are duties associated with them, or arise from them? If there are no rights without duties, why is that so? What duties supposedly arise from rights? Are those duties a condition of natural rights--do we forfeit rights if we don't comply with those duties? Doing the right thing wouldn't seem to be dependent on a concept of natural rights. — Ciceronianus the White

I am not aware of what I think until you ask the question. In the process of trying to answer your questions, I figure out answers. This time my thinking led to the conclusion that only humans have duties because their brains can ask why and come up with an answer. (religion is superstitious answers and science works better). Chimps can learn to use a twig to fish for termites in dead trees (technology) but they will not know the life cycle of trees and termites (science). Our duty comes out of what we can know.

:smile: We are born in sin. Sin is ignorance. We are not born knowing right from wrong. We are born with only a few instincts. Animals learn through trial and error and can learn from each other. However, humans are unique in that they question why something is so and come to learn and understand cause and effect. This makes it possible for them to live in unnaturally large groups in increasingly more complex societies. This demands more of humans than other animals.

Social duties arise out of rights. Of course, it is easy to take and ignore our duties, and then blame others for the problems. But those problems are proof of the wrong, proof our failure to fulfil and duty.
Perhaps we are ignorant of what is right or we justify why we can ignore doing the right thing. Both are a failure to take responsibility for our actions. Polluting the land and waters becomes a problem we can not ignore. Media indulging our lowest instincts has encouraged a reality that is unpleasant. Wars are very destructive and the damage of war continues for several generations. On the other hand, I just had an awesome medical procedure yesterday that might extend my life and no other animal can do this. That is, because we can learn and understand so much, we can manifest a better and better reality. We can declare everyone has the right to food, shelter, medical care, and equal opportunity. Because we can do that, it might be our duty to do that? What happens if we think that is our duty? What happens if we do not? Or what happens if people think they have rights and no duties?
.

“Authority above us” meaning other people, right? — Pinprick

Not exactly. When I speak of that shift in power, I speak of reliance on policy. Like Prussian military order. Prussian military order is a few establish the policy and then they can all be killed, but the policy is still in force. In the past when someone died the person was replaced by someone who may do everything completely differently, like the US change in president. As soon as there is a new president, s/he can throughout what the president before established and create new ways of doing things. But all the bureaucracies are ordered by a policy and nothing can be changed without an act of congress. Kings died but these policies do not die.

Tocqueville was concerned about the power of government shifting from a democracy to a despot and that this despot would manage the details of our lives for us, leaving us nothing to do but be happy. Perhaps some remember the original Star Trek and the shows dealing with societies run by computers. Effectively that is what we have but the parts of computer are organic. The parts are humans following policy and who expect everyone to follow policy. However, when I deal with the internet I am impressed by how computers have taken control of our lives and the silliness of us throwing a fit over the government taking too much control and passively accepting turning our lives to computers and the web.

eople will often consider society or culture as a cause for human behavior, but isn’t society itself actually caused by human behavior? If a society or culture is particularly violent, isn’t that because the people within that culture behave violently? To me it seems that society or culture is basically just a scapegoat for our own actions and behaviors. Instead of pointing the finger at ourselves, we abstractly point to society instead, as if the fault/blame has nothing to do with us. — Pinprick

Culture is something that is learned. The US educated for democracy and transmitted a culture until the 1958 National Defense Education Act. With the passing of the act education for independent thinking was replaced with education for "group-think" and this has resulted in the reactionary politics we have now and an increase in violence. Education for good moral judgment was dropped and left up to the church. Now the US lives with a Christian myth of its democracy(?). I put a question mark there because the Bible is a book about kings and slaves, not a book for democracy. I am saying our democracy has been perverted and it is in big trouble right now. Few know how to defend our democracy because they don't have the education to understand it.

Our churches, military, and industry are all autocratic and we have militarized our institutions. That is, we experienced a shift of power away from the people and into the hands of authority above us. This problem is made worse by failure to treat the web as a public utility and to regulate it for the good of the people. Now it is used to manipulate us and corrupt our people system. We gave up too much power and now powerless people are at each other's throats. We don't trust anyone and we are not united. It is a perversion of the word culture to think we are cultured people. What we have is equal to mixing monkeys from many different troops and throwing them into a caged area and letting them fight things out until the fighting stops. This is not a civilized culture.

How about logos or universal law?

But is the word "right" right here? or duty? they imply a moral component. Is eating or drinking moral? The act itself, not what you eat. — god must be atheist

As you stated we must eat or we die, but the right to eat demands the right action, or we go hungry. I am working with some homeless people who are driving me crazy because the behaviors are not conducive to having a nice meal. A while, back someone in the forum, argued we get things for free and I went ballistic because mother nature does not take care of us as our humans mothers do. We might get oxygen without effort but I can't think of anything else we get without effort. If you want to eat, you better get up early and study the environment at this moment in time with the sensitivity of wolf looking for a meal. You might for you body and weapons and tools so that you survive a little longer. Sleeping through most the day, waking with no plan, waiting for life to happen to you, might not go so well.

:smile: A right is what gets us what we want. A duty is taking responsibility for doing the right thing. Rights exist as the law of nature and things don't go well when we choose wrongs. Whoo, I want to scream to the citizens of the US "grow up". Only your mother is going to your give you your rights without you fulfilling your duties. Mother nature will not and expecting society to care for you like your human mother once did, is just wrong. However- capitalism is good up to a point and then it turns bad and our government needs to resolve this problem. Like if there is plenty of land for us all to take land enough for a farm simply by being the first ones to get to that piece of land, then government doesn't have to do any more than protect our right to own the land. But when far more people need that land than their is land, government must act for justice and compensate for this demand and supply problem.

Whoo

Hanover — Hanover

I am glad you answered

Ciceronianus the White — Ciceronianus the White

question. You all are much more fun to play with than the folks in a political forum who do none of the thinking you all do here. I had no thought of our government but we should know this ..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...

The Constitution | The White House — constitituion

My understanding of rights and duties at the moment, didn't go further than family. If you are lucky enough to have a bedroom it is your duty to clean it up and if you don't the natural consequence is your space will become very unpleasant and you will not develop the strength of character to be an orderly and attractive human being. A responsibility ignored is a lost chance to develop our character, and the negatives build up making our lives unpleasant. If we are so lucky as to have people who care for us, it is our duty to care for them. See how the habit of caring for others, develops our character?

As a great grandmother I can say it can seem near impossible to get children headed on the right track, especially in the culture we have today because none of us are supported by a culture that just puts the rights and duties in the air we breathe, so we assume they are just the way life is and don't even question them. As my statement of rights of duties was just something I assume without thought.

Having a good life is so much about developing the right habits. Confucius speaks of this and I believe it can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita (AS IT IS) a Hindu book. We can think, we have a duty to ourselves to be the best human being we can be, and grow our character by making right choices. From there our family, the groups we belong to, our nation, are just extensions of ourselves. And the laws are natural cause and effect.

↪I agree with you that many people avoid thinking and that the way of the hero or heroine is for the few. I am not sure that this would change much even if people receive the best possible education. The reason for that is because it is easier and safer to follow the leaders. — Jack Cummins

:grimace: That depends on the leader. Following some leaders can be very destructive. Some of us think bad leadership in the US has lead to many avoidable deaths and extended an economic problem far beyond what would have followed better leadership. No doubt some think a god gives us our leaders and that we only need to obey. I am not one of those people.

Thinking and finding a journey outside the common pathways is perilous and can be lonely. It can also be hard work. Perhaps the people who choose to think and question are those who do not fit in or who become dissatisfied with the status quo. — Jack Cummins

Athena is the goddess who taught men to rule themselves. Logos is the highest authority and we should seek to understand it and be careful about following others. When we have a sense of being one with the universe, loneliness is not a problem. And hard work leads to great satisfaction.

It is as if many people do not choose to climb to the top of Maslow's top of the pyramid of the hierarchy of needs, to strive towards the need for self actualization. In fact, I found that in my nurse training Maslow's model, is often just used as a model for the basic care needs, with no mention of self actualization at all. This is different from Maslow's original picture because in 'Towards a Psychology of Being'.

He emphasizes the role of peak experiences as being a possibility, but as one which occurs once the lower needs are satisfied primarily. But I do not think it has to be straightforward. For example, a person may follow artistic needs as a response to lack of love. But of course his model does make sense in the respect that if one was homeless or hungry, such factors would make creative work, not impossible, but difficult. — Jack Cummins

I think you write of a state of maturity. For many of us, we do not have a good sense of self until 50 years of age or older. When we are young we can be painfully concerned about what others think of us and our position in society. Now that is natural! As social animals we need each other and our position in the group really matters! But as we age our brains literally transform. Hopefully, we have used them and encouraged the growth of neurons. Of course if we have not, neurons atrophy and the amazing thing that happens when we get older is not so amazing. As the neurons grow they reach each other and instead of accumulating facts as we do when we are young, we begin realizing the meaning of those facts in away not possible before because now more neurons are activated so the thought is bigger and deeper. But as I said, this is dependent on how we use our brains through out our life time. People who get through life referring the same Bible verses again and again and by choice remain narrow minded, will not experience amazing brain activity when they are older.

I don't think Maslow had this understanding of neuron growth and how it changes our thinking when we age. Until recently, we didn't know our neurons keep growing and make new connections. In observing people he could gain knowledge but it was incomplete. It is observed, our thinking slows down and we will not learn how to use new technology as easily as youth does. But imagine having 10 neurons activated instead of 1 or 2 and then figuring out which brain message is the most important at the moment. From experience, I would say the complexity of our thinking in our later years, contributes to difficulty in learning new things and slower thinking. We have to forget the old to learn the new. I can hear my great granddaughter saying, "no, not that way grandma, this way". But she does not realize the importance of her decisions and why she needs to follow what the adults say. Fortunately, she is cooperative and receives more from her teachers than many children. Unlike many children in ghetto schools who do not trust anyone and are dealing with stresses and emotional problems that hinder their growth.

In essence, human nature is that which the person is inclined to do without external motivations. What would you do when no one is watching? I believe one can change ones nature by expanding one's perspectives to be far more inclusive and considerate of other perspectives and values. This can be accomplished with a great deal of reading, contemplation and time. Lastly, one must be in a place where any change will not be opposed. (basic change theory) — Book273

:smile: I think you have explained the experience of no longer caring what others think of us. When we are young, life is what is outside of ourselves. As we age we accumulate life, and one day, we are looking inside to know what we want to know, not outside. For very sure we change as our perspective changes!

I am not so sure of your last statement. :worry: I think today we are technologically smart but have lost our wisdom. While Trump is a smart mouth, Biden is not so sure, but will think about it, that is wisdom.

I don't think so. I think I merely say that a belief in natural, individual rights may give rise to an ethics which is inappropriately limited, encourages purely selfish conduct and may even be used to justify it when carried to an extreme. — Ciceronianus the White

I must speak to this. There are no rights without duties. The US culture has fallen into a complete disaster because people now believe we have rights without duty. That works about as well as breathing in, breathing in, and never breathing out. We seriously need to rebalance. With rights there are duties. With freedom there is responsibility.

The fact that self-interest isn't a virtue doesn't mean one cannot be self-interested. It merely means that that one isn't being virtuous when acting solely in one's own interest. It means, in other words, that you and I don't show moral excellence when acting solely for our own benefit. There's nothing admirable or laudable about self-interest, but neither is there anything necessarily evil or wrong about. It may be perfectly natural and appropriate depending on the circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White

I struggled with issues involving self-interest and then I realized even the apple tree that gives freely of its apples has needs. I decided there is no virtue in denying myself but like the apple tree, the better I am nourished, the more I have to give.

I believe the story of the first Buddha begins with excessive self denial. He was not the only one wondering around and experiencing excessive self denial, but many have traveled this path and it can become even an unvirtuous competition to be the one who goes to the furthest extreme. It just is not healthy. A healthy person has learned to take good care of him/her self. :rofl: At my age, the virtue is maintaining independence and not complaining about the unpleasantness of living in this deteriorating body too often.

I don't know for certain, but I think it's likely those cultures/societies have no concept of the individual rights claimed to exist in the modern Western tradition. — Ciceronianus the White

Beautiful! I love your expression of thought! In general this forum is so different from a political forum where people bash heads and no thinks about what is being said. Your comments trigger ideas that are in my head and rearrange them in new ways, new insights. This is the most exciting and pleasurable experience we can have. It is Thomas Jefferson's idea of the pursuit of happiness.

Yes! it is about a concept of individualism. Our Western civilization is very individualistic but not cultures are like this. So it is not just what is wrong with rights but how do we identify ourselves? Are we individuals or members of a larger group, or as I like to think of it, a member of something much bigger than myself. :chin: I like Eastern consciousness and identifying with a universal consciousness.A belief system where the ego is deluded into believing it is the most important. I study history and feel connected with the whole of humanity since the beginning of our time. It is just not my nature to compete for money and power. That is crude and distasteful to me. My value is my mind and my humanness and I strive always to make a contribution to society. I am buying a Thanksgiving dinner for about 100 homeless people and my granddaughter is cooking it. Our value is not in money and I think I may understand our rights differently then you do?

Yes. But it was a struggle even for that to take place. FDR was condemned for his support of social welfare programs we now take for granted, implemented during the Great Depression, and there were many attempts to prevent their implementation. Congress wasn't formally authorized to impose an individual income tax until the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913 (there were efforts to impose a tax previously during the Civil War). Income taxation was bitterly opposed. Even now, social welfare programs are condemned as socialist. Many of us are so convinced of the sanctity of our rights that we consider being told to wear masks is a form of tyranny (there is, apparently, a right not to be inconvenienced for the sake of protecting others). — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, the Western egomania culture has its problems. Yes, the vast majority appear to have extremely narrow consciousness. If the knew better they would do better. :lol: Considering how narrow minded many are, it is amazing the US has done so well. It is amazing that during this economic crisis they are handing out money to everyone to stimulate the economy. I am not sure this free handout is the way to go. I think Roosevelt creating jobs was a better way to go, but at least there is some recognition that a good economy depends on circulating money. But the US has a long ways to go in increasing consciousness. It must be one of the most selfish and economically ignorant nation in Western civilization.

Of course, the doctors and the soldiers have their blindspots too. — Jack Cummins

That is a wise conclusion. :grin:

Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued among themselves just as humans do. Each god and goddess is a concept. For example when Athens was being torn apart with dissention, Apollo, the god of reason came into being and the war with Persia transformed Athena from an earth goddess who makes crops grow, to a goddess who teaches men how to rule themselves because Athens became a democracy so everyone would fight the Persians and for Athens.

This speaks of the evolution of the development of human consciousness. The problem with having many gods is you get more and more gods as people become aware of new concepts. In Egypt this got totally out of control and Amenhotep's grandfather ordered a research of the achieves to find the true god. But back to Athens and democracy, it is growing consciousness as each concept, each point of view interacts with another.

The point is the doctor and the soldier will have their blind spots and their different experiences and different points of view, and when they argue from these different points of view, new concepts can be realized and civilization progresses. Democracy is our shared consciousness. In contrast, Trump is attempting to establish a dictatorship where only those who say and do as he wants, hold the seats the power. There is a serious difference and it is disturbing that so many follow Trump.

My thoughts appears to be wondering off the topic of human nature, so to pull it back on topic, my father, a very knowledgeable man who helped send Apollo to the moon, said we naturally avoid thinking when we can, and this seems more true of some than others. Thinking or not thinking goes with responsibility. Following a strong leader can mean avoiding the thinking and responsibility that a democracy demands. The Greeks would say, the god's chose the heroes, but only a small fraction of men agree to go on the journey of hero. Most are content to being like cattle, well cared for but with no responsibility. So what is our nature?

They have no natural right to our support, and the law/government cannot be allowed to require that our wealth be used to support them. — Ciceronianus the White

You write so beautifully I didn't think I would find anything to argue. However, there are people who would disagree with the above statement. Among some aboriginal people it would be taboo to accumulate wealth and not share. The chosen leader among native American tribes is the one who gives the most. Democracy is about the everyone's welfare. It could be understood as a commitment to support each other.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” Franklin Roosevelt

What you said was abhorrent when the church ruled and controlled prices. Communism and socialism focus more on shared wealth than the capitalism of the US and it is easy to find fault with the capitalism of the US. However, the US does tax people and distribute wealth to a limited degree. A minimum wage law, assistance programs take from some to give to others and hopefully most people think this the morally decent thing to do. Many believe this is important to avoiding social problems and the greater cost of incarcerating people. Public education is expensive, but it is an investment that a democracy must make. Divided we fall. United we stand.

For example, there would be nothing morally objectionable in accruing as much wealth and property as we can, even if it means we are much better off than others and have far more power and influence than others do. — Ciceronianus the White

I think exploiting the land and others for personal gain is hurting the earth and the nation, and is morally wrong. Especially those who are exploiting the earth are stealing from future generations and are being immoral because of how damaging they are. And thank goodness enough people thought slavery is wrong, to stop it but we did not successful give people of color equal rights and now we are paying for that wrong.

Right Reason — Ciceronianus the White

Right reason is more consciousness than any one person can have. Democracy is amazing because everyone feeds into the consciousness and this brings us to education for all, a national pension plan, and hopefully some day a national health care system. A moral is a matter of cause and effect and a moral nation is one with board consciousness. The US is now divided and its democracy may be self destructing? It is my hope that we will pull through these bad times and come out stronger, but we need to reeducate the masses about democracy before we can defend it. Democracy like a tribe is everyone working together for the good of all.

Unfortunately our industry was based on English autocracy, and in 1958 the National Defense Education Act, ended transmitting a culture for democracy and liberty. Now we are in big trouble. Right reason resolves problems and avoids creating them.

The tendency to prejudge individuals and groups seems to be innate for humans, in part because quick categorizations proved advantageous for survival during Mammal evolution. But our advanced cognitive powers also allow us to quickly learn from our peers, who is to be trusted, and who is to be avoided. So human prejudice is both Innate and Learned. As for your other questions, read the book. :smile:

Humans are wired for prejudice : https://theconversation.com/humans-are-wired-for-prejudice-but-that-doesnt-have-to-be-the-end-of-the-story-36829

Innate or Learned Prejudice : https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/fall-2015-questions-race/innate-or-learned-prejudice-turns-out-even-blind-arent — Gnomon

Beautifully worded. :clap:

I have a huge preference for dumping the Bible and using science to understand our nature and I am delighted that you seem to be working with the more scientific understanding of our nature. I think everything in our lives around the world would be improved with a scientific understanding of our nature.

I want to add to what you said, black birds also learn which humans are their friends and which humans should be avoided and they pass this information to each other, so our ability to do has nothing to do with our cognitive powers. HOWEVER, we can do something the rest of the animals can not do. We can see that German uniform or an allied uniform and we can spontaneously put down our weapons and share Christmas eve with our enemy, and return to war the next day. We have more choice over our actions and we can change what we think.

The degree to which we have self determination and self control, depends on how we are raised and educated. Our culture and our time in history shapes who we are, and unlike the animals we can become aware of this and we can change what we think and how we behave.

Essential is understanding, if we are raised to be conservative, concrete thinkers, we will be narrow minded and quick to defend what we believe. If we are raised not to be reactionary, but to think things through, and to think abstractly rather than concretely, we will be broadminded and not so sure of what we think we know. For this reason, the US is locked in culture wars and may destroy its democracy.

Let us just hope that the future is one of more knowledge rather than ignorance. I am inclined to think that we are at a crossroads, and history can make negative or positive of knowledge and that it could be used destruction or positively. Perhaps, it will be a mixed picture. — Jack Cummins

That would be more knowledge of what? Holy books are so simple. Until the 20 century the only education most people had was from the holy book and that is still true of some people. Our specialization has made it possible for us have good lives relying on the expertise on others, and totally ignoring most of the available information.

The people in the US think they have a democracy but what do they know of democracy? Who can list ten principles of democracy? How can we defend something we know so little about? We may discover our worst enemy is ourselves. At this moment in time, it is as important to know the history of Germany as the history of the US, if you are a US citizen because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shits power to the state, and the German model of education that prepares the young to live under the Germany model of bureaucracy and what makes this really bad is they have no awareness of this.

I am arguing like this because my own family does not share truths and this is extremely upsetting. My own family operates on beliefs that they get off of Facebook and they are so sure of themselves, no one will ever look for facts. They were not educated to think! Education for technology is for people with good memories, not thinking people, and it has nothing to do with transmitting a culture for democracy, unless you happen to be a good school district.

We could say our nature depends on how we are educated. Human beings are very pliable and can be saints or sinners depending on their childhood. Doctors or soldiers, depending on their childhood.

Hum interesting. How can there be nature laws without natural rights? Are you saying Jefferson's word's wrong?

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.- — Jefferson

Of course we have a big problem because we ignored what Jefferson said As though Nature's God had one set of rules for us and another set of rules for "those people".

That sounds like reasonable explanations.

The Wikipedia explanation is more in line with the one I am familiar with.

t is also taught among us that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lust and inclinations from their mothers' wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God and true faith in God.

Original sin - Wikipedia — Wikipedia

Isn't that belief a judgment of all people?

How does Jesus save us?

What is the definition of good and evil here? — schopenhauer1

Good question. Kahlil Gibran said we do good when we feel good, and we do bad when we feel bad. Now does it make sense to try to make someone good by punishing this person? We are now exploring the possibility of helping people who are having a problem being a part of main stream society instead of incarcerating them and punishing them. It will be nice to see if this gets better results.

The human species began as neither good nor evil. Good and evil were nothing until we thought of them. Because we have set out "good" and "evil" as terms that can apply to us, the terms do apply, and we are sorted good or evil, depending on who is speaking.

We are what we are: a primate species endowed with intelligence (but not too much), driven by a strong will (as often heedless as not) and possessed of wisdom (but a day late and a dollar short). — Bitter Crank

You said so well and so concisely, I don't think there is anything I can add to it.

Many writers have got themselves in a deep mess by assigning characteristics to a particular race, gender or group of people. Even though I see a lot of strengths in Jung's writings, his enormous weakness, or shadow was the way he made generalisations about racial groups, in particular about the Jewish and German nation, and at a critical time in history.

Certainly, any use of the term human nature needs to go beyond stereotypes. If the term is used it is about understanding the basics of the human condition and nothing more. — Jack Cummins

Nice consideration. Our history is surely one of ignorance. I have much hope for humanity because of how information can change what we think and do.

The story of the ants was very interesting. It was fun thinking about what I would do. I think I would use fire, but it would also be fun to see what would happen if a live electric wire were put in the ditch filled with water.