Science arrives at facts democratically? That's an interesting perspective. When do they vote? — frank

Democracy is a way of life. In those science labs people are consulting with each other. If we had the democratic model of industry, everyone would be consulting with management on the best way to achieve desired goals. In the home, as young women today are insisting, agreements are made democratically. No more the male rules over the woman and she does as she is told.

How so? Democracy is a political system for the administration of daily life. In what way does a "search for truth" form the foundation? Can a political system be both democratic and disinterested in romantic notions of searching for truth? — Aussie

All governments are varying degrees of democracy and autocracy. The actual form of the US government is a republic and at the moment we have a president who thinks all power is correctly his and he can rule over governors and mayors. That is a little startling to those of us who prefer democracy to autocracy, but he has a strong following of Christians who believe in God's kingdom. Those of us who do not believe God whispers in his ear, and think decisions right now must be based on science, not wishful thinking, are alarmed and that makes this thread very important.

In a series of textbooks written to mobilize the US for WWII, we are told "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality. affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, august, 1939)

Government is one aspect of democracy. Being well educated is another aspect of democracy. Reading Pericles' Funeral Oration makes these arguments clearer.

Democracy and Christianity are not compatible...
— Athena

Strange, then, that so many of this country's founders were Christians. Mind you, I am NOT proposing the argument that this is/was/should be a "Christian nation". I merely suggest that if the two systems are incompatible, it strains credulity that many adherents of the one were the founders of the other in this country. Do you suggest they actively worked in contradiction to another of their own deeply held beliefs?

What a delicious question! I will repeat the US is a republic, and only through education can it manifest democracy as a way of life, and I am repeatedly told of the founders' fear of the masses. In the US, industry is autocratic and most people do not know of the democratic model for industry. Then we might consider the Federalist Papers and Jefferson's opposition to them. And we can go on to speak of the Civil War and how both sides thought God was on their side. YES, the founders of our democracy "actively worked in contradiction to another of their own deeply held beliefs"? They saw themselves as fit to rule, but not the other guy. The other guy, as the Bible tells us, is a sinner and needs to be saved. Even if he claims to be Christian, he is not a Christian like us and does not know God's truth and not everyone held political power. The protected freedom of religion was to stop them from persecuting and killing each other and that becomes part of our documents, not because of Christians but because of literacy in Greek and Roman classics.

Is this a suggestion that your (or democracy's) philosophical answers are not only correct but also possess a rock solid basis?

Yes, and if you have another question I will continue my explanation of that. Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved. That is importantly very different.

What are those philosophical underpinnings that are both complete and consistent?

There is no such thing.

This is to say, are you sure there aren't philosophical notions required for your truth loving democracy that, when you get right down to brass tacks, aren't built on little more than you really, really wanting them to be true?

I hope you give me an argument that I can argue. It is not about what I want, but what I know, and I hope you will come to understand that.

All Christians?

No, but right now enough of them to be alarming!

Since...always? Or do you think this is a more recent phenomena?

No, but when the Church had authority yes! It destroyed the pagan temples that were places of learning, and medicine. It threw medicine back hundreds of years. It killed people to protect its truth. And unfortunately, education for technology has reestablished the power of Christians to personally deny science because in 1958 we stopped education for good moral judgment and left that to the church. A huge mistake! For about 200 years when we had education for democracy, Christianity was not the problem it is today.

And opposed to ALL science? Or specific scientific notions? Again, the plethora of Christian scientists, both dead and living, seems to suggest otherwise. But perhaps you mean your broad sweeping statement more narrowly than it reads.

The history of Christians and science is interesting. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, these Christians believed science would explain God with absolute certainty. Then came the problem of earth not being the center of the universe. And evolution- whoo was that a problem! and it still is. That is precisely why Christianity is not compatible with democracy. If there ever was a defining conflict that is it.

A rebellion against taxes got plenty of support, but the notion of democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics and begins with math and a notion of proofs and creeps into medicine as a growing disbelief that gods have anything to do with health problems, and Aristotle took this intellectual development further with an explanation of logic. The American Revolution began as an intellectual revolution long before it became a violent one. Literate leaders appealed to the dislike of taxes to recruit those who were not literate, then they wrote the documents that gave their new democracy form.

I've never thought of the search for truth as a particularly American value. No one is opposed to such a search, but religious tolerance, which is most definitely an American value, requires a certain amount of apathy about any victory of truth. John Locke is one of our favorites.

As for science, again, no one is opposed to it, but I'm still not seeing how it has much to do with democracy. A love of democracy is like this:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
— Lincoln — frank

The search for truth is universal, and it was an American value, but is no longer an American value thanks to Christianity.

Democracy is built on a search for truth, starting in Athens, not the US. Democracy and Christianity are not compatible because they are entirely different belief systems that oppose each other. One is based on superstition (creationism) and the other is based on contemplating philosophical questions and observation of nature. And yes, Christians are opposed to science. They treat science as the snake in the Garden of Eden and without question, this is a very serious political problem in the US.
 
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

That definitely is not a Christian notion! Without a doubt, Lincoln was familiar with Pericles Funeral Oration.

Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs. It seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honor should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperiled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavor to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me.

I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and seemly that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. And we ourselves assembled here today, who are still most of us in the vigor of life, have carried the work of improvement further, and have richly endowed our city with all things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace and war. Of the military exploits by which our various possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should like to point out by what principles of action we rose ~ to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire became great. For I conceive that such thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably listen to them.

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.

Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face. And here is the proof: The Lacedaemonians come into Athenian territory not by themselves, but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbor's country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil, we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength, the care of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been vanquished by us all.

If then we prefer to meet danger with a light heart but without laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law, are we not greatly the better for it? Since we do not anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave as those who never allow themselves to rest; thus our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we are lovers of the beautiful in our tastes and our strength lies, in our opinion, not in deliberation and discussion, but that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by receiving favors. Now he who confers a favor is the firmer friend, because he would rather by kindness keep alive the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying a debt. We alone do good to our neighbors not upon a calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up: I say that Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is verified by the position to which these qualities have raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her. No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please for the moment, although his representation of the facts will not bear the light of day. For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a path for our valor, and have everywhere planted eternal memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and every one of us who survive should gladly toil on her behalf.

I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes 1 can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! I believe that a death such as theirs has been the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valor with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honorably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonor, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory.

Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit, although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be expressed in words. Any one can discourse to you for ever about the advantages of a brave defense, which you know already. But instead of listening to him I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all tombs, I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and, esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the general hope.

Wherefore I do not now pity the parents of the dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know that your dead have passed away amid manifold vicissitudes; and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained their utmost honor, whether an honorable death like theirs, or an honorable sorrow like yours, and whose share of happiness has been so ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a man never knew, but which were a part of his life before they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at which they may hope to have other children, and they ought to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones, but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have passed their prime, I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you have been happy during the greater part of your days; remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the love of honor alone is ever young, and not riches, as some say, but honor is the delight of men when they are old and useless.

To you who are the sons and brothers of the departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however preeminent your virtue may be, I do not say even to approach them, and avoid living their rivals and detractors, but when a man is out of the way, the honor and goodwill which he receives is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men.

I have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law, making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have them in deeds, and it remains only that their children should be maintained at the public charge until they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead, after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you have duly lamented, every one his own dead, you may depart. — Perciles

It's always, "oohh, so you warned us about this smarty pants. Are you happy now that everyone is suffering from what you warned us about!" Instead of "hmm, yes, we definitely made bad predictions and bad decisions and have no coherent worldview that can even process the present situation, maybe we should think about that." — boethius

As my Christian friend said, she is forgiving and loving. Inferring I am not because I do not believe Trump is a great father for our country and I can no longer tolerate her denial of his serious errors and lies. I think he is the wrong leader for this time in history.

My Christian friend is as about as anti-science as a person can be. Science has become the snake that told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Innocently she has no idea how Trump could have known what would happen and what steps needed to be taken because she does not turn to science to know such things. It seems many Christians think if they do not know something, it is something that can not be known. For some reason, education for technology has made Americans more anti-science and more religious than they have been in 200 years! :gasp:

I think I'm failing to realize that. What's the connection? — frank

To clarify, the question is what is the connection between science and democracy.

When we prepared for WWI and WWII schools and bookmakers focused on American values to mobilize the United States for war. This focus would include a list of democratic characteristics. One of them is... "The search for truth".

You might be aware of the ongoing disagreement between Deist and Christians about truth and self-evident truth. A self-evident truth is an empirical truth. it is a fact that can be verified through the scientific method. European countries were Christian and Christianity supports the notion of kings and a hierarchy of authority over the sinners, that supposedly has God at the top. Democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics and coming from this source, truth is based in reality and empirical information. In a democracy, that is not contaminated by Christianity, there is no god whispering in the king's ear it will be safe for people to return to life as normal by Easter, "such a special day". :roll:

Moa was worshipped by communist followers and Moa had the power to make farmers plant everything deep in the soil with the wrong notion that this would lead to deep roots and strong plants. It lead to famine and thousands starved to death. Just as Trump's denial of the reality of a pandemic lead to its spread before the medical system could be prepared to manage the problem. No one could vote Moa out of office, but in the US, a democracy, the citizens can vote ignorant people out of office. That is what the American Revolution was all about. We rely on science- the search for truth, not faith in someone chosen by God to be our leader. Or we did until education for technology left moral training to the church and resurrected a past of ignorance and superstition and distrust of science.

Well, that’s not been my understanding. Many philosophers’ writings show evidence of development in beliefs throughout their career, resulting in a necessary distinction between ‘early’ and ‘late’ philosophies that we can often struggle to reconcile. I will concede that it’s not a prerequisite, but it seems to me to be a characteristic of long-published philosophical careers. — Possibility

Oh yeah, our thinking changes a lot as we age, if we are in the habit of thinking. Not everyone is in the habit of thinking, but many are in the habit of avoiding it, and from there they are reactionary. That is a failure to actualize our potential as thinking creatures.

I am confident I would have complete a book about education, culture, and politics, years ago, but I keep reading and learning, and the book always needs to be rewritten as my understanding improves. :lol:

Not an entirely false belief - in their experience of the Earth, it does actually appear flat. You can’t deny that, because it’s part of your experience, too. It is only when we can explain how their belief is structured in relation to our own that we can show how the illusion is formed and where the errors are. This is why the ‘flat earth society’ still exists - because simply telling people their belief is ‘false’ is not enough, and only encourages their ignorance. — Possibility

You are so good with words and your thoughts are so well developed. You are awesome.

"Sinful" is an ethical judgment. In my opinion, issues of gender identity are an aesthetic matter - they are qualitatively incompatible with the ethical sphere, and should be kept separate from it.

But, to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic. The application of these terms factors only relativistically, so if the nonbinary labels itself normal, then the binary is necessarily rendered abnormal. The normal can hardly retain its essence and meaning independent of its dialectical relation to the abnormal. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would say sin is ignorance. It is as Cicero said, we would make the right choice if we knew what that was. Making the wrong choice is ignorance of the right choice.

I understand "moral" to be a matter of cause and effect. So when it comes to gender identity What would be the bad of a bad choice? For me, that would be giving up my femininity because humanity needs the feminine influence and I don't want to give up enjoying being a woman. Really, I make a terrible man! I have no desire to compete with them. But if this were the past and I was left on a farm without a husband, I would work like a man to the best of my ability. Theodore Roosevelt spoke of how important women are in times of war, and I am very proud of what women have always done to keep the children alive in good and bad times.

I don't know why you are arguing "to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic". I don't think I ever did that. What I did is state our gender and our gender identity is not as simple as the normal X and Y combinations. My intent was to say there is a lot of variety and make room for tolerance of differences based on science, rather than leave alone the status quo of intolerance based on religion without science.

Now back in the day, we could look at Sparta and make an issue of population decline resulting from men being more interested in men than women. That would make it a moral problem of cause and effect and in the case of Sparta, I would say it was a cultural problem not the result of the variety of X and Y combinations.

You vote for bad people? A joke? A remarkably stupid joke. — tim wood

Not a joke but Wrestlemania mentality. Have you seen the video of Trump shaving a wrestler's head? He is the ring taking full part in the freak show of abusiveness. Who wants a president with no dignity and so ignorant of science his careless increased the spread of the virus? And his lies and womanizing, and his poor wife. Not in my time have we had such a pathetic first lady. She is no Elenor Roosevelt, but more like the victimized females of Wrestlemania.

At least Biden is speaking in favor of science. It would be nice if we realized what science has to do with democracy and why we are doing better than when religion, not science, ruled. The problem is not limited to Trump but includes our national opposition to science and my Christian friends make it obvious where that comes from. :mask:

I am not sure the US is wealthy. I think it appears wealthy because everyone uses credit cards and the government runs on credit. I think we are pretty scared of what increasing our debt will do to the country.

On the other hand, the US has used military spending to boost its economy since WWII and I don't understand why spending on health and education would not do the same.

One state governor seemed to suggest the high number of people of color dying from the virus is their fault for having bad health. I am wondering how many of those deaths were because the poor can not afford medical care, therefore, they died at home without medical care. I hope those deaths are well researched and my concern is proven unfounded.

Ok, let me offer an interpretation of what you are saying that would make it sound more palatable to me:
Suppose you possessed the truth about a certain phenomenon. You had a very strong belief that you were right, but of course you didn’t know it. None of us knows anything, but in this case your belief happened to be true. Still, your belief, though true, would not be perfect and every time you learned about other people’s false belief on the subject and interacted with them, you would expand your understanding of it and get a firmer grasp of the truth.
Just hitting upon the truth has little value for a philosopher if the belief rests on a weak foundation and by “sharing meaning” you can strengthen it.
Do you accept my interpretation? — Congau

Yeap, that is the essence of democracy. It is about what we believe, not who rules. It is totally awesome and it is not explained in the Bible.

Some of the presidents in the US get there by appealing to the Christians who know the Bible but not the reasoning for democracy, and then we get a president who tells us God whispered in his ear that the coronavirus would pass by Easter, "a very special day" and we could all come together and celebrate the resurrection. Democracy, however, depends on science so we got a decision to extend our isolation until the numbers indicate it is safe to go out and we have the medical requirements needed to control the disease and save lives.

You see? It is about right reason and if we do not agree we better argue until we do, because acting on bad reasoning means things will go wrong and we will regret that decision. That is the reasoning that got us out of the Dark Ages and into an age of reason and science that more than doubled our life expectancy and means believing our children are more likely to live to be old, than they are likely to die by age 3. Right reason, science, has done more to end evil than holy books.

Sorry - by ‘shared’, I don’t mean agreed upon in all aspects. A perspective that is shared - as in expressed, discussed, articulated - exists. A fictional character that remains only in your imagination may have an intriguing viewpoint, but its meaning comes from being shared - from allowing that viewpoint to interact with another. A shared meaning is one which is related between two or more people, whether they agree only on its existence or on some aspects but not others. — Possibility

That is a beautiful way of explaining that.

Democracy may be a practical form of government that protects against tyranny, but reasonable? No, it isn’t. It’s an eternal compromise which makes decisions based on formal procedures rather than systematic logic hatched by a unified mind.
There’s no consensus on the best reasoning. All actors still think their original reasoning was best, but they can’t get it all, so they have to be content with a part of it. — Congau

Your words tickle me. Democracy is not a practical form of government. A republic is a more efficient form of government, and under that form of government is a culture and it is that culture that should get most of our attention.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men, and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." There are several characteristics of democracy. One of them is to participate in the duties of democracy. The rest are about we live together. Sort of a secular 10 commandments.

Democracy is an imitation of the gods. We argue like they did until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Effectively this is rule by reason, not rule by authority over us. Democratic people are motivated to obey their laws, because they understand the reasoning of the laws, and know they can be changed if there is better reasoning.

If all actors do not agree and independently think their reasoning is best, we better argue the reasoning until we do have agreement because if we do not get things right, bad things will happen. The consequences of our actions can not be changed by sacrificing animals, saying prayers or burning candles, so we need to be as sure as we can be that our actions are the right ones.

From my own experiences in the (private) education sector, the majority of teachers today are anything but impersonal. Certainly there are regulations and codes of conduct in place to protect all parties (increasing since the 70s here) that make it seem from the outside as if teaching has lost that personal touch, but the greatest strength of a teacher is still their capacity to develop relationships with their students despite the limitations. I think you may need to take your focus off what has been lost in relation to the past. — Possibility

I would say teachers today do seem to be ignoring the bureaucratic mind set that was promoted soon after enacting the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I was shocked to see a complete refusal that seems to be based on anthropology studies of the importance of relationships to learning.

Now we need to improve the breadth of that education and make it more well rounded, and individualized so all the young people who are not going to college are not cheated out of the education they need for their self-actualization.

I’m not familiar with the advocation of drug use to manage emotions at a government institutional level. My personal experience is of Australia, though, and drug use is very much portrayed here as a strictly personal and leisure activity, not a therapeutic or professional one - even in social work. I am, however, conscious of the cultural promotion of legal and prescription drug use specifically to manage emotions in the US, so it wouldn’t surprise me. — Possibility

No wonder you are so smart. You are Australian. I envy you. Truly I do.

:lol: Using prescribed drugs to manage emotions is not something printed in the explanation of policy but the environment and expectation of "professional" behavior. We have a "Brave New World" mentality. My sister who worked for a state support enforcement division has better stories than I do. Mine is not that great, but I was dismissed for "being too friendly" and my clients who defended me were told the danger of really being friends and not just superficial (professional) friends. When management of the organization changed, I rejoined the organization and I am so pleased with the change in policy! So I am thinking a large part of the problem in schools and bureaucracies may be passing? We have experienced the problems with too much authoritarian control.

The difference really matters when the state takes custody of children. When my grandchildren were made wards of the state, I joined a group of grandparents whose grandchildren were made wards of the state, and we were able to change state policy and increase family rights to keep the children in the family. Now the help families in trouble receive is awesome. It is like our nation went through a very ugly period and I hope we continue in a more human-friendly direction. My son and daughter were in school when things were not good and when they came of age we announced a national youth crisis. That is why I have spent the rest of my life studying what went wrong.

Any organisation that reaches a certain size becomes aware of the uncertainty of human potential, and the increasing inability to please everyone. How managers minimises that uncertainty is by excluding emotional intelligence from their decision-making process, and establishing a concrete relational structure or institution. This ‘scientific’ approach then becomes a ‘best practice’ model for smaller organisations and companies who are focused on growth. — Possibility

That is extremely helpful information. It would explain a learning curve and serious errors. After independent thinking was killed, I know at least one welfare department began pleading for employees to do more independent thinking and everyone was afraid to do so.

Oh my, you are triggering so many memories! This is totally awesome.

My friends lacked college degrees but had perfect control of a human services office because they knew the community. Sarah, the receptionist, could resolve any problem because she knew the community so well. Then, in came a college graduate with her fancy title and "professional authority" and she was the kiss of death. This "professional", an outsider, told Sarah she was to do none but send people back to her office. Sarah left and within a year this rural community no longer had a human services office.

Including emotional intelligence in the decision-making process involves accepting a higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability than most management styles are comfortable with. But effective growth is about identifying and focusing on an underlying impetus more than an overarching structure. Again, it isn’t about the autonomy, independence and identity of a concrete, actual institution or individual, but about working together to maximise the potential of the organisation as an ongoing relational structure. But banks and investors need certainty, and so do people with families to support and bills to pay... — Possibility

Perfect! The bad things happened before the book Emotional Intelligence was published. It is not only that we experience authoritarianism can be very destructive, and kind of like putting a stick in the spokes of a wheel, but we have much more research than we had back then. Thank you for helping be more aware of this.

I think that maximising awareness, connection and collaboration is not an achievable end-goal in actuality. And to be honest, I’m not arguing that maximising autonomy, independence and identity is necessarily a BAD thing - but it’s not an achievable end-goal, either. Whether we label this difference as masculine-feminine or not, it’s not a definable dichotomy as such, but an interaction of relative potentialities. — Possibility

I think the democratic model of industry does maximize awareness, connection, and collaboration and the autocratic model prevents it.

I

think it is in the imbalance and in challenging each other with a dynamic state of equilibrium that we give meaning to our thoughts, words and actions, our lives and our existence. This is how the universe has developed thus far, from atomic, chemical and molecular relations to the origin of life, evolution, consciousness and imagination... — Possibility

That may be so. Our history is not one of balance and I don't think that past was a desirable one. However, it is possible our consciousness will change so much we could speak of a New Age when consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to people of the past.

To merge the abnormal into the category of the normal is a ridiculous confusion of concepts, and definitely would require an abundance of overthinking. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then don't do it. However, let us not deny that not everyone fits in the normal range and accept their differences are biological and not "sinful". My only concern is people be well informed and aware of biological differences and accepting of them.

Nah, ethics and morality are timeless. Just the kind of stuff that need to be included in it, the 'stitution. — Shawn

What is the source of ethics and morality? The US has always been more religious and less philosophical than Europe. Not that long ago illiteracy was common and the only thing many learned was from a preacher. That left people on the lower levels of moral thinking.

Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level has two sub-stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage.
Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology
https://www.simplypsychology.org › kohlberg — simplypsychohology

If we do not pay attention to what education has to do with moral thinking, we are going down the toilet. We had education for good moral judgment and those who had that education manifested a very different culture from the Wrestlemania culture we have today. Religion is the lowest level of moral thinking dependent on fear of punishment and rewards provided by a God or god-like figure (parents). In 1958 we replaced education for good moral judgment, with education for technology and left moral training to the church.

The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda was to keep education for higher-order thinking skills out of the schools, and that state strongly pushed for creationism being taught as a science equal to the theory of evolution. The Bible supports the notion that we can not be self-governing and must have authority above us and God gives us leaders and our prayers give this person the power of God. In this corner we have Jesus. In that corner we have Satan. And the crowd is worked into a frenzy.

These folks have no idea, our constitution is based on notions of human excellence and the power of knowledge. Please, do not stop with the words "ethics" and "morals". Those words are like flat balloons, without education and leaving moral training to the church is not a good idea.

Who reads the constitution? Who is aware of the philosophical foundation of democracy? Who is literate in the classics that are the foundation of democracy?

How about Neitche and Hegel? Superman and the State is God.

We must pay attention to education and culture. If people are turning to the Bible for truth and we stay on the same path Germany followed, what will the result be?

↪Banno I thought the idea was a tripartite set of watchers watching the watchers, each with the ability to intervene. Not that the President was the single unifying command, except, perhaps in war - which is one way the tripartite structure has fallen, since Presidents can de fact declare wars without Congress and have been using Executive Orders much more than Presidents used to. All by passing Congress. And since the Supreme court touches none of this, but could conceivably, they too have lost notches.

Couple all that with the incredibly power money has over government and we have a mess long before Trump came a long with his circus. — Coben

The Eisenhower administration put the Military-Industrial Complex in place and I think we should all heed his warning.

Despite his military background and being the only general to be elected president in the 20th century, he warned the nation with regard to the corrupting influence of what he describes as the "military-industrial complex". ... But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
Eisenhower's farewell address - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Eisenhower's_farewell_address — Wikipedia

The Military-Industrial Complex is what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. It is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. We are now what we defended our democracy because we adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education, and the general population is clueless and therefore defenseless, emotionally driven and reactionary.

Adopting the German model of bureaucracy was essential because our bureaucratic organization was extremely inefficient and could not manage federal programs such as social security. If we had just retained education of our liberty and democracy, we would not be in the mess we are in now. A man like Trump would be recognized as a tyrant, not the Great Father of our country that many Christians think he is, and we would have managed the pandemic with science, not a man who tells us God whispered in his ear that our social distancing could end by Easter, such a special day. :rage:

We would have the democratic mythology of our democracy, not the Christian mythology of our democracy. Destroying our national heroes was very much about shifting power and authority from citizens to centralized power and authority. The state is God and all must conform to the state. God's will and our will are the same because we are good Christians, right? :pray:

I think we are in a cultural crisis and that unless we return education to defending our democracy, we will lose it. No branch of government can defend our liberty if all citizens are not educated to do so.

The potential for being a man or woman is directly tied to the genitalia one is born with. If one puts the chop to their phallus, they merely become a eunuch. I think that is a clear and already existing basis for a trichotomy. — Merkwurdichliebe

It is not that simple.

Abstract
In human subjects, the sex chromosomes are the X and the Y chromosomes. Normally, a complement of two X chromosomes (46,XX) is seen in females and one X and one Y (46,XY) in males. The X‐chromosome includes about 1500 genes, only a few of which are involved in sex development. The Y‐chromosome contains very few genes, but one gene, SRY, is the most important gene in male sex development. Multiple autosomal genes are also involved in sex development. Abnormalities of sex chromosomes can involve errors in the number of sex chromosomes, such as 45,X0 (Turner syndrome), 47,XXX, 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), 47,XYY or mosaicism. Sex chromosome abnormalities also include aberrations of a single gene of the sex chromosome, leading to a disorder of sex development (DSD). This can result in 46,XX DSD and 46,XY DSD.

:brow: Sometimes I wonder if too much information is a bad thing. I love science but when I look at information like that, I think a rather stick with gut feelings and ignorant human imperfections. One rule, be nice, and don't overthink everything. :lol:

I see. If your notion of “shared meaning” is only intended as a pedagogical device, I entirely agree. Sure, we should look around for all possible perspectives and it is certainly instructive to learn how different people see the same things differently. In fact, we should even go further than that and not end our inquiry by only paying attention to views that are actually held by someone. We should strain our imagination and be open for any conceivable perspective. Most of them would be outlandish, but a few may happen to contain some truth even though no one has yet captured it in thought.

That’s why I don’t quite understand your use of the word “shared” in “shared meaning”. A perspective may be interesting even if it’s not shared by anyone. Fictional characters who have been raised by wolves or monkeys for example, offer an intriguing viewpoint and do feel free to come up with any tale of your own. We absolutely shouldn’t let our mind stiffen to the degree that we can only imagine our own narrow perspective.

But our “open-mindedness” should not be expanded to a point where we think we see multiple truths, and that’s where I think modern popular philosophy has gone astray. — Congau

Wow, I really like that first paragraph!

Perhaps I should not comment on the second one that questions "shared meaning", but... I think democracy is an imitation of the gods. The gods and goddesses evolved from ruling with brute force to ruling with reason. They argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. So while a democracy values shared meaning and cooperation, it also makes room for the outsider. That is the power of creativity, and because the outsider may come with new and valuable insight, our form of government means constant change, unlike religions that are conservative and attempt to hold everything in the past with a defined "God's truth", no more thinking necessary, just obey.

Your last sentence is really beautiful. One of my books on logic says we should honor intuitive ideas, but always check them with empirical evidence. And here is where shared meaning and notions of truth become important. None of us want to be ruled by the mad man, nor to be the looney toon.

Only a woman living in a hyper civilized super protected society built off environmental domination over millions of years could say that domination is pointless. You are both a pessimist and a nihilist. Spoiled brat. — BraydenS

I would love to have the authority of a moderator in my threads. Posts that are disrespectful would be returned to the author for correction. In this case, all that name-calling would have to be deleted before the post would become public. I want my threads to be safe and that means everyone is respectful and protects the dignity of others. No personal attacks, no name-calling.

It has been my experience males do not agree with my feminine concern but tell me I need a tougher skinned. Alligators have tough skins and very small brains. The question of this is, might the world have come out differently if the voice of women had always been as strong as the voice of males and civil meant having good manners. What kind of society do we want to create?

There is a lot of merit in empirical thinking, but not to the exclusion of emotional intelligence - humanity employs both, not one or the other. — Possibility

Unfortunately, our institutions are not in agreement with what you said. In the 60'tys we began training teachers to be impersonal. Government controlled agencies are firm about people being "professional" and enforce emotional distancing and even encourage using drugs to manage emotions. Drugs and being a social worker go together. The drugs help people by "professional".

Autocratic industry is a hierarchy of authority and separates management from labor. A person can be fired for fraternizing with the wrong people.

At the lower levels of labor, life can be brutal. Social status and self-esteem here, depends on being tough enough to handle abuse and on being abusive. It is learning to hold your tongue and be subordinate, and then going home and demanding instant compliance with demands.

No, it shouldn’t matter to this discussion, which is why I haven’t offered it. I like to think I don’t need to offer it in most situations - so long as you don’t assume certain information about me.

But there are a number of occasions on this forum where I have given personal information in order to dispel certain assumptions made about my particular perspective. I think when we feel the need to position ourselves in an argument as male or female, for instance, it’s often to address a degree of ignorance, isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. This may be the crux of what Athena is getting at.

The aim of philosophy is to approach a shared meaning in how all of reality interrelates. We can’t achieve this accurately if we ignore, isolate or exclude information that relates to the difference between my argument and yours. — Possibility

Oh yeah, I bolded what I am responding too. And I want to say something about being personal. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't being analytical and impersonal a bit male? Empirical thinking embraced by the US Military-Industrial Complex is dehumanizing and we are dealing with the consequences with that now on a national level and the global response to it.

For whatever reason being a good woman has meant being a caregiver and it is not very caring to attack someone for making a personal statement. For sure a personal statement is not empirical information, but that does not make it invaluable. Germany, that gave us empirical thinking as a national goal, did not take it to the extreme of the US. In Germany, students are encouraged to have different experiences and to share them. Perhaps we want to value each other instead of being overly empirical and dehumanizing each other. I think this is the value of the feminine quality and that humanity needs it.

Women who have chosen to follow the traditional values have faced isolation or exclusion in relation to that position. I went from being a goddess to "justice housewife" and now we all have the freedom of barbarians. Women and children are on their own, no longer valued and protected members of society. However, female legislators are trying to do something about this.

Our leadership has taken children from their families and has left them in a building to fend for themselves, leaving 8-year-olds to care for babies without the help of adults? Elenor Roosevelt played a strong role in Franklin's New Deal. Our present first lady is not the strong woman Elenor Roosevelt was. So much for "women's liberation". We have increased opportunities for women, but our national values appear to stink.

I had imagined that the basis by which someone believed something wasn't a one dimensional thing; like another fact which happened to entail it. I had imagined it as a generating process for that belief; facts are part of it, entailments are part of it, what is seen as relevant to what is part of it, some kind of metaphorical/analogical structure that aids the imagination, and an expectation of how things should be (there's my attempt at a 5). Less a factoid, more what the thread is made of in the instantaneous tapestry of thinking.

Given all that and how deep an attachment to an idea can be, I think it's important to see that there can be errors in connection between and within all of these parts as well as an error of generating belief in something given those as input data.

What are those 5 dimensions in your view?
— fdrake

I think these errors you mention are in the various ways that we structure all the events of our lives in relation to each other - in terms of perceived relative value/potential, time, space, direction and distance. Ideally, we refine the accuracy of these relational structures by increasing awareness of experiences that challenge them, especially with regards to value/potential. But this leads to prediction error or suffering (pain, humility, lack/loss): the recognition that we require more effort, energy and attention than current predictions indicate. It is when we pull back from interactions to avoid these experiences of suffering that we fail to perceive the errors in how we conceptualise reality - especially in relation to how things should, could or would be.
an hour agoReply — Possibility

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

Whoo, that sharing of ideas is something worth getting out of bed and joining! :lol: what is happening here is a lot different from what happens in other forums I have been in. :up:

How do you know the differences that have made it difficult for you are differences that should be accounted for primarily in terms of sex and gender?

Don't some males find it difficult to participate in enterprises dominated by males? Aren't some males sometimes banned from some male-dominated enterprises?

Don't males "think differently" than each other? Don't females "think differently" than each other? Isn't it the case that some males conform to fashionable norms of masculinity, while others don't; and likewise that some females conform to fashionable norms of femininity, while others don't?

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? What if it is our potential to be more like bonobo (female domination) and less like chimpanzees (male domination)?
— Athena
I think it's preferable for all of us to pursue solidarity in resisting attempts by anyone to "dominate" or oppress anyone, and preferable for us to pursue solidarity in promoting conditions in which each of us has opportunity to express and cultivate their own character according to their own lights -- within limits we may characterize in terms of humanity, harmony, good will, liberty, tolerance, fairness, compassion, care, respect, and so on.

Demography is not destiny. The fact that you and I each belong to a different set of demographic "categories" is not sufficient to inform our expectations about each other's attitudes and behaviors. — Cabbage Farmer

The answer to your first question is knowledge of hormones and how the brain functions. When males have the same hormones as women and nurse babies, they will be like females and when females watch a football game and are flooded with testosterone and also have the receptors for testosterone, they will be like males. There are individual differences in the levels of hormones and sensitivity to them, so some males may be less aggressive and some females may be more aggressive. But it doesn't stop here. It is also a matter of brain development as a result of repeated behavior and thinking. The neurons in our brains atrophy if they are not used and grown if they are used.

A male's acceptance into male groups and a female's acceptance into female groups is not guaranteed! Our acceptance into a group depends on many things. Our brains are far more limited than we like to admit. We can accept extremely few people into our lives on an intimate level. We can have about 500 hundred people in our lives on the associate level. That means we know their name and a few facts about them, but this not near as much as we know about people on the intimate level. We can accept larger populations such as the notion of those who live in our state share values that may be different from people in another state, but this is really abstract like being one of a race, a nationality, a religion is abstract. But where our place is in each of these groups is an individual matter. Our own families may reject us.

Yes, women can think differently from each other and men can think differently from each other. How different they are, depends on childhood experiences and social agreements and one's place in society.

As in the explanation of chimps and bonobo,what can dominate may not be individuals but social agreements, and here is where the male and female difference plays an important part. Should we organize society with "family order" or "military order"? The old world order was family order. The new world order is military order applied to citizens. Are we honored mothers or "just housewifes"? Is it good to be feminine or intolerable? Are we liberated if being feminine is demeaned and unacceptable? How can I experience who I am and have social acceptance?

I think it's preferable for all of us to pursue solidarity in resisting attempts by anyone to "dominate" or oppress anyone, and preferable for us to pursue solidarity in promoting conditions in which each of us has opportunity to express and cultivate their own character according to their own lights -- within limits we may characterize in terms of humanity, harmony, good will, liberty, tolerance, fairness, compassion, care, respect, and so on.

Demography is not destiny. The fact that you and I each belong to a different set of demographic "categories" is not sufficient to inform our expectations about each other's attitudes and behaviors. — Cabbage Farmer

I can see the problem with my mention of the bonobo. That female domination does not mean forcing anything on the males. It means defending each other so none are brutes taking advantage of others. The females are not dominating, it is their idea of how to live together than dominates. This is contrasted to chimps where brute force rules.

The difference between bonobo and chimps falls into the argument of human nature. Male bonobo behave differently because bonobos are organized differently. They are organized differently because their supply of food is different. Where bonobo live there is enough food for the females to stay together, and together they defend each other. Where chimps live the food supply tends to keep them separated and individually the females can not defend themselves, so brute behavior rules. This is to argue human nature might be as brutish as we once thought and it is possible for humans to be gentle and cooperative. But to get there, females need to have the united power to change the rules we live by. Individuals do not dominate. It is the female social agreement that rules.

Were great warrior queens like Elizabeth !, Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great any less violent than their male counterparts at their time? Was Thatcher known for her pacifism? Do you see any tendency today that countries with female rulers are more peaceful? The dynamics of history are driven forward by human nature, and in that perspective the difference between male and female is probably negligible. — Congau

Hum, you didn't mention Amazon women or the Celtic queen Boudicca. There is no defender better known than the mother bear. Women are capable of defending, but I don't think they are the empire builders that men are.

As for the women you mentioned, they were operating in male-dominated cultures. I can relate to the ambition and loved building forts in a field and imagining myself a great leader. But then I became a mother. True some women can become mothers and remain unchanged, but I am not one of them. The change occurs on a cellar level in response to hormones and repeated behaviors. This does not mean a woman will never pick up arms and defend her cubs, but she less likely to leave home and fight for the booty they can get by looting others, or take an army into war to expand an empire.

Actually, it does. If your argument leads to the conclusion that most women (barring Bathory) are better than men, then yes it does in fact show that we should pick women over men.

Like I said in the beginning, there are OTHER arguments to refute such a notion, but yours does not hold water. It only proves the point, really. — Artemis

Ah, around the world it appears women pay more attention to the welfare of children than men. Those interested in economic development have determined business loans for women will get more for the buck than giving the money to men, because men are apt to spend on themselves and neglect the children's needs. Women may do that too but they are more apt to put the needs of the children above their wants. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures

The question then is what makes most women good? Could it be, given my explanation of why all that matters in morality is the ability to appreciate it, that this is the case precisely because women are weaker then men and so are unlikely to act in riskier immoral ways? Doesn't this mean that opting for a female-dominated system rather than the existing male-dominated one amounts to nothing? It's like replacing Hitler with Goebbels because Goebbels was "better" but unbeknownst to us that was only because Goebbels wasn't the Fuhrer. — TheMadFool

I love it! Indeed what makes a woman good? What does that question mean?

I understand the ideal woman of the 1950'tys. That would be a social judgment. I also understand, what motivates me to be good and that is a different answer. Of course, the culturally defined notion of a good woman motivates us to be that, but if the husband is not the Dick and Jane father, and is not being the ideal father and husband, then things turn sour and it can be very hard to be that ideal woman. How the husband treats the wife is just as important as the cultural image of a good woman.

Whoops, now my mind slips to what industrialization has down to how we live together and how we value each other. Autocratic industry is very harmful with its hierarchy of power and authority and exploitation of laborers. Democratic industry treats people as we want to be treated. I would bet my life that if we had democratic industry we would have stronger families and radically reduce all social problems.

Next, I want to say war and economic crashes take a serious toll on individuals and families. Divorce rates go up when the economy goes down, and marriages go up when a nation goes to war. This combination does terrible things to our consciousness and we might want to explore that? An economic crash crashes the self-esteem of men and when they have very little self-esteem they are more apt to be neglectful and abusive. That fact of life can have a very bad effect on women and children. SO DEAR MADFOOL, MAY I SAY OUR GOODNESS DEPENDS TO SOME DEGREE ON PEACE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY. :kiss:

I am impressed. You pulled something out of the dark corner of our minds and shined a light on it. You remind me of a cartoon of a woman stripper and her audience that questioned who is exploiting whom.

I am coming from the thread about economics, so that is what is one my mind. It was common for husbands to control the family's finances, which left the wife with much less power. Banks would not give women loans unless a man signed for them. There were not many ways for a woman to earn a living, and if she did the same job as a man, she was paid less. My father was adamant that in college I study home economics and then I marry and stay home to be a mother and homemaker because men are paid more than women. I value that because it benefits the children and society when the marriage works.

Unfortunately, marriages do not always work, and then being a traditional wife and mother is a very bad thing. Is there something we can do to improve the position of women?

↪Athena The idea of an economic collapse puzzles me a lot. I hear a lot of how Capitalism, doing nothing more than glorifying wealth, single-handedly led to the downfall of Communism; I believe it's written in history books as well. The underlying message therein is that Capitalism or what people seem to refer to as a free market economy is what people prefer for reasons I'm completely in the dark about.

How does one reconcile the positive impression Capitalism and free market economy has with the ease with which such an economic system collapses? Isn't a good economy one that's resistant or even immune to downturns from within or without? — TheMadFool

Sparta is my favorite example of a controlled economy that we do not want! Sparta used an enslaved population to provide all its needs, while all Spartan males lived in a barrack with other men, and women lived in homes. The purpose of women was to breed more Spartan males. But they all eat a terrible diet that was healthy but not good-tasting and had no choice of things to buy or things to do. Except for music. Sparta used music to keep their fighting movements in perfect coordination. I get carried away, the point is we love having a variety of things to buy and do and Sparta didn't have this.

While Athens had a free market and encouraging creativity and the arts. Following the war with Persia, Athens created jobs for people without land, so they could have an income and still have time to participate in government. Athena's temple was a tourist attraction and it was decorated to teach of democracy. Athens had a university that drew people from the known world and commerce increases knowledge as well as the economy. Many small businesses could develop as Athens attracted more people. I don't think Pythagoras realized the music scale but I think he learned of it from someone from China. For sure Pythagoras studied math in Egypt. Point is, commerce and an open economy advance civilization far better than communism.

However, we might want to consider regulating banks and the stock market to improve the stability of our open economy? Wouldn't you be more interested in investing if your investment was less likely to disappear overnight? Some people understand using money to vote with and invest in companies that are good for the environment and do not invest in companies that are bad for the environment. I also think we could shift taxes to the technology that has replaced human labor. Those are wild ideas and may not work, but I don't think what we have today is working. I have been through too many recessions to believe this is the best way to go.

What do you mean by "being feminine"? I have read some feminist literature and would like to share my thoughts.

I am not a woman myself, but from what I can tell, "femininity" is a standard imposed upon women by men. It is an expectation that they be submissive, nearly child-like, listen and don't interrupt, shut up when they are interrupted, be a sex toy for the silverbacks and do all the chores that men don't want to; but also cultivate virtuous traits like patience, kind-heartedness and beauty that, if displayed in a man, would make him emasculatorily gay and ultimately strip him of any power to dominate.

My observation is that much of second-wave feminism (the scary, exhilarating kind) is populated with figures that are "anti-gender", and they seem masculine because they are taking up roles, responsibilities and personalities that are typically only associated with men. It is not that these women were trying to be masculine, but rather they were denying the reality of masculinity, and demonstrating that some of the things associated with masculinity are things that any grown-up, self-respecting human has. Becoming less feminine meant becoming more human. Not a child/doll/object, but an adult with agency.

Imagine children growing up in homes where mothers and fathers love each other and enjoy working together for the good of the family.
— Athena

I'd rather just imagine people getting along and maybe living together without the need to have children. — darthbarracuda

A delicious post. :cheer: We can not force anyone to feel anything. AND I sure do not want anyone telling me I should not have all the feelings you mentioned. I love being feminine and hopefully, it is obvious I believe feminity plays an important part in human societies. Some of my friends and I, think it would be super fine to share a home with a gay man. The problem isn't their nature but the intolerance of it. Why shouldn't males be feminine? That is what I am getting at, the intolerance of feminity.

My granddaughter who takes charge of shelter programs is proud that she can disarm men carrying knives with her feminity. She and I know if a male were sent in to take the knife, the problem would probably escalate. She goes out of her way to be none threatening to maintain peace. How angry can you get with a big cute bunny? :lol: You can identify the women in charge of a shelter, they are the ones who wearing the hat with a spinner thing on top, or a bunny suit.

About taking on roles of responsibility, did you suggest that is not feminine? :confused: I always ran the household, and I took volunteer positions where women carried responsibility. I have had more power and authority as a volunteer then as an employee where a person can be fired for being insubordinate. I had a terrible time as a paid employee because I tend to take charge, You have opened a can of worms. Being feminine should not mean disrespect or powerlessness. And I should not have to be as a man, to actualize myself outside of the home. What is this thing with insubordination anyway? Might the problem be autocratic industry and exploiting all laborers, regardless of gender? When women stayed home and men supported the family, the men were treated like shit and brought that home.

I think a female has represented liberty since ancient times because women do not organize themselves in a hierarchy of power and authority. A woman is less apt to attempt to control with brut force but she attempts to get cooperation. Without her, we can fall victim to a tyrant or warlord who uses the peasants to fight his wars. The Spirit of America is also a female and she was not about military might.

Agreed. It would be nice to combine the good parts from both genders, remove the bad and then dispense with the concept of gender. — darthbarracuda

Heavens I would never want to dispense with the concept of gender! I am totally opposed to the women who have pushed us to act like men or at least totally reject the idea of enjoying being pretty women.

Wait a minute! I am reading post after post taking sides on which sex should dominate the other. That is not where I wanted this thread to go. This is not a battle of the sexes, or it shouldn't be. But I sure do want it to be okay to be a feminine woman and to have a voice and make a difference in the world. I think there is value in considering what the world would be like today and what we believe is true of humans if we had always had a voice and could have always made a difference.

Perhaps you are blaming, in a way. I’m not sure that it helps to go down the ‘would-a, could-a, should-a’ path in this discussion. I don’t think you can argue that women have not been honoured - not publicly and not often enough as individuals in their own right, sure - but are we honestly striving for this kind of honour, or is it just because that’s what society has valued?

We tend to devalue what reminds us of our own fragility and interdependence, and of the uncertainty and suffering we encounter the more we interact with the world around us. As women, we have always been an unavoidable physical reminder of this reality - for men and for each other. In many ways, women have learned to accept these aspects of life more readily, if only because we could not so easily ignore, isolate or exclude it from how we conceptualise reality.

In an age where even science cannot ignore the uncertainty of reality, I think society as a whole has much to learn from what are traditionally seen as ‘feminine’ perspectives. But so long as we keep referring to them as ‘feminine’ perspectives, and the striving for dominance, independence and honour as ‘masculine’, then we remain limited by our value structures. — Possibility

Whoo, do you think women have always had the opportunities they have today and have always been included in the discussions? Speaking of the past was inviting people to imagine a different reality if women had always been seen as equals. Would we have always engaged in war if we had not been male-dominated? Might men have been kinder and gentler people? Might we not have the argument you made if there were no reason for it?

Yes, I blame men and misogynistic religions and the women who enforced the repression of women.

I can't watch videos because of my limited information bits. Can you make the points he made without the foul language?

I thought feminism was about leveling the playing field with men and not turning the tables on them. :gasp: :chin:

A very fine reason for accepting female domination would be if their moral compass is better than men's but I fear Elizabeth Báthory casts a long, dark shadow of doubt over this possibility. — TheMadFool

You hit a nerve. I have always done better with men than women. I am not in favor of either sex dominating. Actually I prefer rule by reason and everyone coming to a consensus on the best reasoning. The problem I see is, historically women have been excluded from the discussion.

I'm not sure about that. Your government just gave every taxpayer a $1200 dollar check while taking an average of $1500 of each taxpayer's tax dollars to give to corporations, including corporations that deliberately avoid paying the taxes that are now being used to shower them with money. So, your government "helped" you in your greatest time of need by taking a net $300 from each of you to give to its donors, who will give a proportion back to these con artists, which they will spend at the next election convincing you none of this ever happened. And that will work. So... — Baden

That sounds like Bernie Sander's point. We have corporate welfare and some may say this is fascist.
I don't think it is wrong but we need to be honest about it. Oh dear, I feel myself going off on a moral tirade. CEO's should not be paid outrageous salaries. We should replace the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model. We need to get back to our past understanding of human dignity and worth, and put an abrupt halt to the Wrestlemania mentality that has taken over. The place to make the change is public education.

When I say the US adopted fascism, I want to talk about what public education has to do with this. Having a Wrestlemania superstar in the White House is not a good thing but we have educated for this. The German people are awesome, and the US imitated them for good reasons that I would defend, but we should not have replaced our model of education for democracy with the German model of education for technology. I don't mean German education is wrong, but what we did with the German model is not right. We took our culture for granted and that is a mistake. Germany is now a leader in the democratic model for industry and they seem to understand government and the power of the people better the US. Do not leave moral training to the church!
.