Here's the problem I have with your position in general - it is too ideo-centric. You don't seem to have a healthy sense of cultural/normative relativism. There is no limit to the possible number of ways to solve a problem and core institutions are precisely what need to be reformed from the bottom up. Democracy, socialism, these are just labels, not recipes. The solution required needs to unite many different domains, economic, social, spiritual, political. If the political dimension is going to be "democratic" then it will certainly have to be a different brand of democracy than I have seen in operation. I like the way many European democracies work, however, coalitions of parties. That seems to me a good model of co-operation. — Pantagruel

For the organization of democracy, that is not what this thread is about, except perhaps if we focus on the necessity of checks and balances and what is wrong with tyranny. That would be very relevant to this moment in time and the problem with trying to rule as though single-handedly a person can rule a country and get good results. The importance of democracy and moral choices is knowledge, and one man can not possibly have that breadth of knowledge essential to good government yet the US is now run by a President who has dismissed everyone who doesn't kiss his ass, and put in their places people willing to kiss his ass, even though they don't have merit for the job and certainly lack honor because those with honor are walking away. That is a Christian problem.

I would absolutely love to talk about the US adopting the German model of bureaucracy that is Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, and what Christianity has to do with this problem, and the New World Order, or the Military-Industrial Complex Eisenhower of warned us about, but shouldn't that go in another thread?

Well, that was a great maneuver avoiding all my arguments and leading things off in a different direction.

The subject of this thread is morality. The reasoning for democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics. One of my favorites is the Roman Statesman Cicero. He was a must-read in the day of the forefathers of the US. This is the literacy that is essential to our liberty and justice and could there be any reason for arguing against that, or arguing this is not what our founders believed democracy is about?

“What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”

― Marcus Tullius Cicero

Glory follows virtue as if it were its shadow. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Ability without honor is useless. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes

Our character is not so much the product of race and heredity as of those circumstances by which nature forms our habits, by which we are nurtured and live. Marcus Tullius Cicero
Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes — Cicero

His quotes are so good it is hard to know where to stop, but with that last one, I must say, our social and economic justice would be much better if we read Cicero rather than when people read the Bible with its notion of why we are less than noble. The God of Abraham religions are not good for democracy because its moral reasoning is not compatible with the reasoning for democracy. Followers of the Bible tried to manifest Saints, but I believe we are more liking to achieve human excellence with the Greek and Roman classics.

I have read the Koran and the Haddiths, have you? Obviously not, otherwise you would know that what I said is correct. Concepts like the sanctitiy of life, separation of religion and state, and neighbourly love do not exist in islamic teaching. I was simply stating a fact. — Nobeernolife

But you missed these verses.

From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go!" [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]"

— Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.

— An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[33]
Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.

— Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[34]
That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.[34]

The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.[34]

Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

O' my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you... Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.

— Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31[35]

As are other concepts fundamental to Western civilization, such as the sanctity of life or neighbourly love. Islam, for example, has none of those. — Nobeernolife

Whoo... where did you get that idea? For someone who wants me to respect all religions and not generalize, that sure seemed like a very US Christian thing to say! How many times have you read the Quaran and how many of your friends are Muslim?

:brow: And I was worried about offending you. No more worries about that. That was a hateful and wrong thing to say. It was so unbelievable that you would say that, I had to read and reread it several times to be sure that is what you said.

The objection to what we said about all religions being based on the golden rule, is your ignorance.

If you want to participate please get informed. You have to be a US Christian because you are repeating their false beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

The game is not over yet. I think the pandemic will bring about changes and there is hope we will realize the democratic model for industry can greatly improve our economy and democracy! With the books coming out now, there is a good chance we willreturn education to education for democracy and that would be a huge improvement! I would love it if you responded to all my thoughts, not just the words you want to argue against. We can see the glass as half empty or half full and you are working on the negative while I am working on the positive and defending our democracy as I wish everyone would do. If you are right and I am wrong, then why should we support a very expensive military to defend our country. Morally it clearly would not be worth defending.

Cicero said it is our nature to make the right choice when we know what that is. In our past, those who dropped out of 8th grade to get a job, associated ignorance with bad choices, and this could be a national and private problem. It was their duty as citizens to be as well informed as they could be, so they could participate in civic organizations (unions, granges, fraternities), and government, to correct our problems and lead us to a nation of human excellence. WHEN WE THOUGHT LIKE THIS, WE WERE THE LEADER OF THE WORLD. We are no longer seen as the leader of the world.

Here is the introduction to a grade school history textbook first written in 1936 and reprinted in 1939 and 1942...

"The central purpose of this book is to make citizens better equipped to face realities. At every step the readers are made to see their relationship to everything that surrounds them. The role of people in every historical movement is made prominent so that the reader will understand his place and his importance in modern society, and accept his own personal obligation to be an intelligent and responsible citizen." America's World Backgrounds

This grade school text was written when we began mobilizing for the second world war....

"A democracy thrives upon criticism. When a free people, alert to change, studies its institutions to make them serve more richly the aspirations of the common man, it necessarily discusses the points at which improvements seem to be needed. On the public forum and in the national press interested citizens concentrate their attention upon the defects in the democratic pattern to the extent that a Martian observer might draw the conclusion that, in the opinion of its followers, democracy is a failure.

What the observer does not understand is that the public critics accept the fundamental principles of democracy so completely that they do not need argue about them...." Democracy Series

That last statement was true when we educated for democracy, we stopped doing that in 1958 and began educating the young for a technological society with unknown values. Our reality is very different today. Some changes have been good, but our lack of understanding of fundamental principles and believing the Christian myth that it gave us democracy, is wrong. It is seriously wrong. Our Christian Republic is not the democratic republic we inherited and defended in two world wars, and that is the result of the change in education.

Moral- only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. And yes, democracy is about morality. Without that education, our morale is very weak. Morale, that high spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. The Spirit of America is dying. Just as the spirit of Jesus would die if churches turn to preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values.

The Golden rule is older than Christianity. Actually Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. We do not need religion for morals.

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
Golden Rule - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Golden_Rule

You do realize that the notion of all people being equal is a concept based on Christianity, — Nobeernolife

Do you realize in the US the South used the Bible to justify slavery? That war was so dreadful because both sides thought God was on their side.

At the beginning of the US, Catholics were not allowed to hold office. I have a quaint book about how the Catholics are trying to take over.

We have done better than Europe when it comes to persecution of the Jews, but a main reason for the US constitution declaring freedom of religion was Christians killing Christians. The Mormons faced terrible persecution.

I have to wonder if young Christians today know anything about history? They sure do not know that God and Satan were feared! There could be no Satanism with Christianity. The notion of a loving God and apparently forgetting the religion is just as much about Satan, is relatively new.

Lol, we don't have a democracy in the United States of America. — SonOfAGun

Very true. We have a Christian Republic, not a democracy.

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

WHICH religion? You are still generalizing about "religion" which makes absolutely no sense. Also, where do you get the idea from that "Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth"`? You completely made that up, didn´t you. — Nobeernolife

Yes, belief systems that are based on fiction are problematic.

The notion that democracy is something very different, and is about discovering truth, comes from philosophy, the Greek and Roman classics. The idea also comes from an old grade school textbook series called the "Democracy Series" and other books written as we mobilized for the second war world, clarifying why our democracy must be defended.

Back in the day our democracy was defined like this...

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity 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.)

There are usually 12 characteristics of democracy listed in the books and one of them is "The search for truth". Coming from math and the art of medicine, Athens was leaning more and more to scientific thinking. This was lost to us when Rome fell and it resurfaced during the Renaissance leading to the Age of Enlightenment. That is what Renaissance means, the return of that knowledge and reasoning. You know, the thinking the church suppressed and that eventually lead to modern sciences. Religion must be taken on faith, that is not the same as basing one's life on reason and demanding proof of evidence.

When the Protestants split for the Roman Catholic church and these different religious groups began killing each other and persecuting Jews do you think you would have taken one side over another or talked about religious tolerance? On what grounds would you defend heretics and those who promote religious lies and serve Satan? Is there a moral we can learn from that history-based on faith in God and Satan, not self-evident reason?

Your position smacks very much of the social problem that is criticized in the book I just started reading, Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action.

Basically a fallout of the Enlightenment, when people came to have an unreasonable belief in the inevitable superiority of the rationalist-reductive approach, inspired by Newton's accomplishments. Culminating in the dreary technical anomie of our modernist world.

"The progress of societal rationalization...turned out to be, according to Weber, the ascendency of purposive rationality....not a reign of freedom, but the dominion of impersonal economic forces and bureaucratically organized administrations"

So much for the ideal of democracy as an ideal of rational human excellence. — Pantagruel

Yeah! You know enough to make this a good discussion! :love: It isn't just that you know the enlightenment had something to do with democracy, and that high hopes became discouragement, but you did not attack me and questioned me instead. That is about how you think. Those who attack me are reactionary and that is not the kind of thinking that advances knowledge. It is pretty futile to argue with reactionary people. But you opened the door for a good discussion.

I think what is really important here is understanding how we think is just as important as what we think. The higher-order thinking skills must be taught because they do not come naturally. Unfortunately, in 1958 our public schools dropped the Conceptual Method and replaced it with the Behaviorist Method. Now our young lack the concepts of democracy and also the thinking skills needed for better thinking. They are reactionary and this has serious social and political ramifications.

I seriously what to argue for the education that we had, that was modeled after the education of Athens, for human excellence. We must allow for the reality of very few people getting more than an 8th-grade education until recently. Our education system was doing good if it could at least convince the young of the importance of education, but even if that effort succeeded, people didn't earn good wages and few could afford books. They did not have the media we have today. Mostly they were rural people and Christian. Let us look at our history and base our judgments on that knowledge. We have come a long ways, and I don't think those who felt discouraged would be disappointed if they could see us today. But, they would surely be alarmed by what the change in education has done to our consciousness.

Also, and this is very important, we did not know that much about how we think and how a child's brain develops. What we have achieved is amazing considering all the challenges our republic has faced. That is a republic in form, that once upon a time, had a culture for democracy and understood the importance of unions, granges, and fraternal organizations. For darn sure, without education for democracy, it is not known! We have a Christian Republic and that was not the goal of the enlightenment.

I'm curious what you mean by "secular" vs "religious" matter; in practice most of those popular dichotomies are false.

For example, the Common Law system evolved from older ones, including "religious ones", though most would call it "secular" and not belonging to any specific religion or "sect", despite the influence of Christianity and other systems such as Roman on its development. — IvoryBlackBishop

That is an intelligent question. It is a matter of where a person looks for truth in how things work and if a person is questioning the knowledge or going on faith. This is really as much about "how" people think as it is about "what" they think.

Come on this is a philosophy forum. We will get no where talking about the US or the UK unless we are talking about where the idea of democracy began and why some people were willing to risk everything to have a democracy, instead of a monarchy when Christianity taught God choose who will rule and who will serve, and going against the king is equal to going against God.

Excuse me for talking about something you don't know.

If you follow this link you might have a little better understanding of democracy and then we might have a discussion I might enjoy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&oq=Aristotle+and+puruit+of+excellence&aqs=chrome..69i57.26676j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The irony is that, in your devotion to democracy, you are prepared to defend the abstract ideal of democracy, despite the shortcomings of its implementation by specific individuals. Whereas you completely deny that exact same freedom and right to the ideal of religion. — Pantagruel

Well of course. Democracy is about discovering truth and basing life decisions on truth. Religion is not. Democracy is about human excellence, religion might strive for that but the way it attempts to achieve that is very problematic because it is not based on truth.

No, the goal here is to argue whether thinking it is okay to bring more people into the world IS itself an ideology. — schopenhauer1

I thought we had an agreement that some people think about having children and some people do not?

For sure my decision to have children was intentional. For sure I thought I would not have the full experience of being a woman without having children. I was a virgin until marriage because I didn't want to risk having a child without a man to support us. I wanted to own a home and have money in the bank before having children. I thought a woman should be a full-time homemaker. Those are very traditional values that were strongly promoted by public education. I associate these values with democracy. But having the ideology of democracy was not the reason for having children. The reason for intentionally having children was to fully experience being a woman.

Unfortunately, I began my family with a man who didn't want to be a participating father. He just wanted to prove he was a man by having a son. From there he took no pleasure in being a father. He begrudgingly supported the family for several years, became alcoholic, went through rehab. and AA helped him put himself first. He abandoned the family to protect his sobriety. What was his idealogy?

Fascinating. You have completely failed to respond to point 1, that you have committed the fallacy of generalization, by employing the fallacy of misdirection.

Meanwhile, while you are not willing to allow religion to assume an idealized character, independent of the shortcomings of its adherents, you are more than willing to be an apologist for democracy.

Do you see the irony? — Pantagruel

Okay, I will try again. Which religion do you think is based on truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes, I am devoted to democracy and I don't see any irony in that. Please, explain the irony.

You should stop generalizing about "religion". There are very different religions out there, some more beneficial or dangerous than others. I.e. How many wars were fought on behalf of Jainism, Buddhism, or Bahaism? Can you spell zero?
Typically when people like you generalize about "religion", they are thinking about medieval Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. But that is not all there is. Generalizing about "religion" is like generalizing about "ideology".... as if all ideologies were the same.
So please stop doing that!
Thank you. — Nobeernolife

Which religion would like to rule the nation where you live? We may have a good discussion if you focus on the thoughts and not on me. :flower:

1. This attributes the faults of specific individuals who claim to be religious to religion itself. You might as well say "Speech creates a serious problem because some people lie." — Pantagruel

I don't think religion is about truth. I believe we evolved as all animals evolved and we are not specially made from mud by a goddess or god. Which explanation of humans a person holds strongly matters. and I have a strong preference for basing decisions on truth.

2. In what world is democracy rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning? Certainly not this one. — Pantagruel

Democracy is an ideology. It is not universally understood and that is most certainly true in the US! The US is Christian and Christianity supports autocracy and the US is more autocratic than democratic. I doubt if anyone in the US can write 10 characteristics of democracy, while a professor in Syria, I met online, had a far better understanding of democracy than people in the US. When I praise democracy it sure is not the US I praise.

Also preference is most definitely not a thing derived from imperical science and that is the stance you are debating for. So I'm confused as to why I'm being told to provide evidence of my stance when yours is the more lofty reasoning? The biological need for information to survive only happens through new life. People have sex to create new life. All I'm saying is if modern theory of evolution is to be believed then instinct is what sex likely
drove procreation in the first place, even for us humans. — LuckilyDefinitive

Yes, "preference is most definitely not a thing derived from empirical science". If we rejoice about global warming and the pandemic sweep across the world or think it is terrible and must be stopped, it is a preference. Some see it as a sign of the last days and are thrilled they are proven right and Jesus is about to return. It depends on the lens we are looking through. Basing all decisions on money is another lense. :lol: some people may have bifocals and some people can't find their glasses.

The fact that any new life has to maneuver and "deal with" to survive, maintain, and entertain lest they die is an ideology in itself.. It doesn't matter what way of life (as repeated again). — schopenhauer1

Perhaps you are using an anthropological definition of ideology?

Ideology (Anthropology) ... The first use of the term refers to the system of social and moral ideas of a group of people; in this sense ideology is contrasted with "practice.
Ideology (Anthropology) - In Depth Tutorials and Information
what-when-how.com › social-and-cultural-anthropology › ideology-anthr... — what when and how

Image result for define ideology in sociology
Ideology is the lens through which a person views the world. Within the field of sociology, ideology is broadly understood to refer to the sum total of a person's values, beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. ... Ideology is directly related to the social structure, economic system of production, and political structure.Jul 3, 2019
Theories of Ideology in Sociology - ThoughtCo
https://www.thoughtco.com › ... › Sociology › Key Concepts
I didn't realize there are so many different ways to understand the word "ideology". — thoughtco

That seems to cover a group of people more advanced than primitive tribes. I would not except primitive people to put so much thought into their lives and without the thought, there isn't an ideology.

I understand the political ideologies but question the value of the anthropological and sociological use of the word. I am not sure it is helpful to make a word mean anything you want it to mean? Of course, tribes have their method of survival and at some stage, they will come up with stories, but an idealogy? I am not sure that is a good use of the word? I don't think believing we came out of the center of the earth is equal to the more formal political ideologies.

Anarchism.
Colonialism.
Communism.
Despotism.
Distributism.
Feudalism.
Socialism.
Totalitarianism.
More items...
List of political ideologies - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_political_ideologies — Wikipedia

I would say religions and ideologies are a step away from a primitive survival system with unquestionable truths. The story about the three sisters that tells people where to find water is just a story. For me, it does not become a religion or an ideology until people forget the reality-based meaning of the story and mistake the abstract story for the reality. Political and religious ideologies are not equal to the story of the three sisters that tells a person where to find water. Political and religious ideologies exist with no concrete reality. I think we walk down a troublesome path if we forget that.

The sociology definition or ideology is "the lens through which a person views the world". Knowing the three sisters is where to find water, is not a lens, it is reality. Thinking the abstract story is real, is seeing the world through a lens.

Not about one type of society versus another.. Only about having to navigate society (survival, maintenance, entertainment) in general. — schopenhauer1

What? It doesn't matter if it is apple or oranges? Try making an orange pie. :lol: Aren't we arguing the difference between dealing with reality or being lost in abstract ideas? Perhaps that is what is wrong today. People willing to kill for their religion/ideology and blind to reality.

That depends on the decinition. THe definition I used bases morality on a religion, and ethics simply as a societal standard. So yes, if you do not believe in religion, you can have ethics without morality. But of course if you use a different defintion, you get to a different conclusion. — Nobeernolife

That is a serious problem with religion. It totally screws up our understanding of democracy which is rule by reason and dependent on moral reasoning (cause and effect). From there it screws up every other notion of humanity and after screwing up every thought with false and superstitious ideas, it leads people to war. We live with a notion that we can not avoid war because it is in our nature, but what about the religious cause of war? So is wetting our pants in our nature, until we learn to control our bladders. Throwing tantrums is in our nature until we learn to use our words. The goal of adulthood should be learning to control our animal impulses and to live with a sense of social justice and reliance on reason. Really when the reasoning for democracy is understood, so is the advancement of humanity understood and religion stands in the way of that.

↪Athena Reason is not faith based. That is why we still have religion and science, and why they want to be distinguished as mutually exclusive. — LuckilyDefinitive

I see problems with religion. If Christianity stayed with the Bible and didn't claim everything good as Christian, that would help. Especially when it comes to morality and democracy. We really do not want to go back to the dark ages, and our progress did not come from the Bible. Especially our morality should not be left to religion! The US is having some serious problems because of the Christian myth of our democracy and the false notion that morals are a religious matter, not a secular matter. We should know without a doubt that a moral is a matter of cause and effect and virtues are habits we develop over a lifetime that help us be moral. Absolutely no religion required.

"To reiterate, my argument is having a child is approving of a certain lifestyle (the current society) and thus society becomes an ideology for parents."
Is it though? What if you have a child outside of societies bounds and raise it disdain society? — MyOwnWay

I am on your side of the argument. I think we need to question what does it mean to be one of us and why does it matter. A society needs a shared ideology but do we have that?

Is someone with a different skin color one of us? Are Japanese children one of us? Is a Mexican one of us? Can a Jew really be one of us? Do all these people share the same ideology?

Who can list 10 characteristics of democracy? How can a person who can not list 10 characteristics of democracy, pass the ideology of democracy on to his/her offspring? What does it mean to pass on an ideology?

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding my argument to mean only this society should be questioned. My point is questioning if any society should be perpetuated, whether new/old, this way or that way. All societies are going to have the same basic ways-of-life (that is to say a way to survive, maintain environs, and entertain). It is not whether this specific society should be perpetuated vs. another type of society. That is where there is a mismatch of dialogue here. — schopenhauer1

That does not ring true to me. Perhaps you could describe it more precisely? Exactly what would a common ideology look like?

(thus marry early, have a ceremony, make it sacred, make it tied to money and property, etc. etc — schopenhauer1

I don't think those are universals. They are common but not universal and there is nothing sacred about our secular marriages.

As far as youth and education, and enculturation, the question is why are we making new people? — schopenhauer1

We reproduce for the same reason all other animals reproduce. It is nature, not an ideology that leads to reproduction. All animals do it. Marriage is about who is responsible for whom, and it is only common, not universal.

What is important to carrying out society to a new generation at all? — schopenhauer1

It is not about carrying out a society's ideology to a new generation unless there is a war and then reproduction becomes very important. Then it is important to have as many people as possible or the whole society will become extinct. Your own survival is in danger if your defense is weak. Isreal and Palestine are a good example of the importance of outnumbering "them". Israel's claim to democracy is especially difficult because if the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Jews would loose control of decision making. This forces Israel to increase its population faster than the Palestinians. It can not assimilate Palestinians into its culture, unlike the US that gladly assimilated most but not all immigrants. You don't become a Jew like you can become a citizen of the US. And this is about "us" and "then" not exactly ideology. A better subject might be why do divide between "us" and "them"?

Christians were super excellent at assimilating everyone they came into contact with. Jews are the reverse of this. One does not just decide to be a Jew. This is why there are more Christians than Jews.

While I agree on many points, indeed this would be another conversation, as interesting as it is. — schopenhauer1

That is not just another subject. It is stating you don't have an argument because the US is an example of a society that has not preserved its ideology.

Why we bring more people into the world, and spread THE (not a specific) brand of "society" (any way of life, not a specific one). — schopenhauer1

Why is it important for Christians to make everyone one of "them"? Why does one society assimilate others and another society keep itself pure of those others? Can we be sure those Jews forced to be Christians are really Christians or are they faking it and do they threaten "us"? I think you have locked onto the wrong premiums. Reproduction is not the only way to increase our numbers.

Well, this thread is about specifically how society is perpetuated by procreation. I think we can move to that question after we discuss this a bit more. — schopenhauer1

No, we procreate because of nature not because of ideology unless we are in a conflict with others and have to outnumber them. The drive to procreate drastically decreases when people start living in cities and most of the young survive. Now if you are a male Hindu, you must procreate to be sure you have a son to help you pass into the good life. For most men, it is important to have a male child because of ego reasons, and women, in general, want a girl child for ego reasons. It just isn't right to dress up a boy like a girl and teach him to cook and sew like a girl. Only recently did it stop mattering that boys be as boys and girls be as girls. This is about ego, not ideology. Give us the ideology that you are talking about. I don't think there is a universal ideology. There is "who I am" and "who I am not", and there is "us" and "them". What gets passed on is not an ideology! The US is not passing on its original ideology.
People living in the US think of themselves as belonging, even if they are children of illegal immigrants or criminals sitting in a prison. We think we are us and not them. But we do not share an ideology.

Hold on though, you are jumping off on an interesting but slight tangent. If we can make the argument that perpetuating society is like perpetuating a game, and each new person born is a new participant in the game, why should more people play this game? — schopenhauer1

Well in the US they are not playing the same game that started with the democratic republic. I would say the original is about dead. What are we doing about it? We are talking about our past as in such a way that we think the present is much better.

Let's say the goal of this game is something like "self-actualization". The levels are things like survival-in-an-economic setting (i.e. employment), maintaining your comfort levels (cleaning, regulating surrounding temperatures, consuming preferred items, etc.). and entertaining yourself (keep your mind occupied, try to find meaning in some task or goal, etc.). — schopenhauer1

Do you think that would have always described what is important?

With all this in mind, why does this ideology of abiding by this well-trodden way of life (society) need to be perpetuated to yet another person in the first place? — schopenhauer1

I don't think it does.

What is it that this game must be continued? — schopenhauer1

The purpose of mythology is to transmit social agreements and transition youth into adults who are valued by the community. The children just happen without planning. I know you think children are the result of planning, but for how many centuries has that been true?

But why are we preferring to perpetuate this ideology? — schopenhauer1

Because we believe it is best and will mean a good life for the members of our society, but as I said we have not perpetuated the ideology of our forefathers. We stopped using education to transmit our culture and began preparing our youth for a technological society with unknown values. Today what the young think is best is not what we wanted in the past. I absolutely hate the new fade of saying "perfect" to everything! That is so superficial and frivolous. I find business practices today, intolerable. I see a serious lack of individual liberty and power and this is not "perfect". This is surely off-topic, but maybe you can understand why I find it hard to go along with your train of thought?

Its self-justifying and when we get to the root of the reasons, it doesn't even add up. What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

What is going on is that people are born, they suffer but it is stated that the "brand" of the game-of-life (the ideology of society) must be played by another person. — schopenhauer1

I think you must be young because you are unaware of a dramatic cultural change. The US has become what it defended its democracy against. That means all those people who defended our way of life, died for nothing. That bothers me a lot.

You skipped my question of how is an ideology transmitted.

It appears this was the last activity for Jonmel. I want to raise awareness of sleep apnea. Sleep apnea is easy to diagnose. It is a condition that prevents a person from having deep sleep and the result is excessive tiredness because effectively it is equal to not sleeping at all. What happens is the air passage closes when a person goes into a deep sleep and this keeps the person in a light sleep. That, of course, interferes with essential body functions such as the work of hormones in repairing the body and mind. The problem is corrected with a small machine that uses air pressure to the airway open.

I must congratulate you on her tenacity. I will agree some people have children to perpetuate an ideology. Now once the child is born, what do they do to prepare the child to perpetuate that ideology?

In societies where people with a different ideology take control of resources and enforce a different way of living, it is devasting to the aboriginal people, leading to shattered lives, broken families and alcoholism. Are people who do this to other people guilty of a wrong? How important are our ideologies to the good life?

I disagree that society itself is an ideology.

I’m currently reading Aristotle’s Politics and he clearly states that the state is a community.

A community is composed of families that formed a larger social group. Typically for mutual support and survival.

I believe our ancestors hardly had the time to debate ideologies when they formed the earliest societies along lines following instincts. — Agathob

We should not assume our family is universal and determines our social order for all time. Sparta did not value families. In Sparta males in barracks and in the end were defeated because they could not reproduce fast enough and their enemies overwhelmed them.

In some cultures, there is no word for "father" because they are not organized around fathers. Not being sure who the father is, it is the mother's brother who holds the father's position.

In some areas in China, a child's father may be the guest in the mother's home but it is the women who rule not the men.

Since we destroyed the value of mothers and said they were just housewives, the number of women who refuse to have children has increased. And throughout modern countries the number of children a couple has greatly decreased, some countries barely reproducing enough to have a sustainable population.

The decision is not a political one, but an identity one. In this place and time, what do I need to do to have high social status? That can mean getting as many females pregnant as possible or not becoming a mother. However, the decision does have political ramifications. The US is no longer ordered by family order, but a New World Order that is very different from the democracy we defended in two world wars.

However, to decide to have a child is a choice. — schopenhauer1

For whom is it a choice? Is abortion an equally legitimate choice and should we make sure family planning and abortion services are available to everyone?

Many of us older people find it quite impossible to excise the control of our bodily functions as you so proudly assume is everyone's choice for control. And since when did we expect a male to exercise the control we demand of men today? Back in the day, 4F males took a lot of pride in not exercising a lot of self-control.

They are signalling, "I like society and think someone else should have to go through all the ways-of-life of the current society" — schopenhauer1

BS, they are horny and it happens and they sure as blazes are not pondering the social and political ramifications of having sex. My bad, that was not a very philosophical statement, but here is where philosophy gets a bad rap. The average person is reacting to feelings without analyzing why and what the consequences will be to self or society? Young people having children can't even comprehend how a child will change their own lives, let alone contemplating ideologies. When it comes to sex, it is the other head in control.

Oh dear. I always thought people had sex because of hormones not because of some kind of planned parenthood.

However, men did hold a notion that having a son proved they were a man, and back in the day, having children is what a good woman did. Are these examples of having children to manifest an ideology?

I knew a young man who was diagnosed with ALS at age 28 and he chose not to have children because the disease could be inherited, but later he regretted making that choice. It was not an ideology he wanted to preserve, but dying without experiencing beginning a parent seemed to be a regret. I think also that he would have liked to have had a child to extend his short life. But as things seem to be getting worse, I think increasingly people are hesitant to bring a child into this world. For sure people are choosing to have fewer children compared to having 8 to 14 children.

When the currency will be gone, in all practical terms, the government will be gone too. — alcontali

That is why I talk so much about liberty and democracy. In the beginning of all civilizations, people have nothing but a determination to work together and manifest a good life for all. I do not fear an economic collapse. I fear facing one without a shared ideology favoring democracy and liberty. Our way of life can not be sustained so I expect the worst to happen, but if our democratic ideology is strong, I believe we can maintain our civility and adjust to having a good life with less.

Where are the few remaining families that could still fall apart? — alcontali

:grimace: The remaining families are in the mothers fighting to give their children good lives. The problem is there are too few good men, and hopefully, we can change that. OMG that was sexist :lol: to be fair, our modern young ladies could use some improvement too. I am sorry for being so bad but hang with me okay?

Where does our idology come from and how is it transmitted?

That will only keep flying as long as the corporations do. The corporations will be gone in Venezuela/Zimbabwe type of situations. In fact, they may already be mostly closing, just in a corona-virus situation. — alcontali

Agreed, but this Military-Industrial Complex is nothing like the democracy we defended in two world wars and it is not our only possible reality. This is why I had to jump into this thread. What ideology are you all talking about when you talk about having children to maintain the manifestation of the ideology. We are what we defended our democracy against. Having children does not maintain an ideology. Only educating children for an ideology maintains the ideology.

We can also expect that the security situation will deteriorate drastically. I expect to see riots and looting. Things have been too good for too long. Some people have become way too arrogant, and it is time to pay the bills now. — alcontali

Yes, we educated for that and we elected Trump. :lol:

It is past time for me to get in the pool and exercise. While I am gone, please tell me what ideology you all are talking about. It seems to me this thread took a turn when it became about having children. Otherwise, the ideology could be any tribe of native Americans, or any religion. If the people die, so does their culture and consciousness. Sparta became extinct because it could not reproduce fast enough to outnumber their enemies and it was their ideology that created this problem.

All in all, you're right on the money about how empty the ideology of procreation is. — TheMadFool

I should use the user name Ms. Contrary because no matter what is said, I can take the opposite side. I think what we think of having children is dependent on several factors. Our age is one of those factors.

When I came of age, females went to college to find a good husband and then they stayed home to have children and care for the family. Homemakers did more than care for their families, as they cared for everyone in the community, or in large cities, got involved with volunteer work. It is all about being a good woman, and that can be considered a part of an ideology.

I love our brief mother goddess period following on the trail of the Hippie movement. I loved identifying with the movement and baking homemade bread, gardening and preserving food, being creative. I was a woman and women are mothers. That was most important to me at the time. I am not sure what that had to do with politics but I am sure it was not an empty ideology because it lives in me with great joy.

Later as I learned of Athens and Sparta, I came to the conclusion that family values are very important to democracy and our liberty. I can understand having a sense of patriotic duty in being a traditional woman. This is highest in my priority of importance but I would be surprised if that is what you all are talking about.

Well I appreciate a reply to my thoughts and an explanation of the new economic slavery.

What I have read of the Great Depression totally disagrees with

In fact, men even like it when the shit hits the fan, because that allows us to creatively find solutions, rise to the occasion, and show our mettle. Hard times tend to be good for men. — alcontali

For me, the great recession following the OPEC embargo of oil to the US was very different from men benefitting from economic collapse.

I want to be careful to not derail this thread but economic collapses tend to destroy men's self-esteem and they abandoned their families, leaving the women alone to provide for their children and care for them too. It is nothing like your notion of the effect of economic collapse. Now let us speak of having children to pass on an ideology. :gasp: I DON'T THINK SO. Only a sheltered woman without much life experience would think that is sound thinking. Mothers rarely enjoy the freedom of men and if she does assume the freedom of a man, I think the children are in trouble. So if a woman wants freedom, she doesn't have children. At least not intentionally.

An Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, thought a goddess granted him his mathematical genius. As you think it so it is because we create that in ourselves and it is projected back into our shared reality.

I don't think Pythagoras should get too much credit for the math discoveries in the relationship between physical properties, movement, and sound. I can not prove it, but I would bet he learned from someone familiar with Chinese concepts. Much earlier in time the Chinese had metal bowls and noticed the size of the bowl determined the sound of the bowl and their math took this into consideration. It is possible to control the size of the bowls and get the full scale of musical notes.

This you tube demonstrates a relationship between the physical world and invisible vibrations. I am prone to believe it was women who made these discoveries because of cooking and cleaning and men who then attempted to write of explanations of them.

All life fundamentally chooses to have offspring. That is why it still exists in the first place. — alcontali

That was before women's liberation and different forms of birth control. Life may choose life, but we should not take it for granted that woman choose to give birth.

I know I am not of line in this thread, but I would like to know how many women are in this thread? It troubles me that until recently extremely few women were allowed to participate in philosophy or anything else besides bearing children and caring for them. For centuries males debated truth without a woman's point of view. When the subject is having children, I certainly think a woman's point of view is an important one, so please tell me, how many women are contributing to this thread's understanding of truth?

Case in point to question in quote 2 is the statement in point 1: If there is no line between good and moral, then the first quote becomes "The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have good good judgment," or else "The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have moral moral judgment," both of which necessarily follow the reasoning of why we need line, because both of them necessarily make no sense. — god must be atheist

How can wars be possible? Spread the God of Abraham religions and leave the moral training to the church. I hate Christianity because it has so screwed up the understanding of morality. Please, this can very politically hot and that might not be appreciated here? I hate Christianity because it has so screwed up our understanding of secular morality and everything else! Education for technology has lead to the "Christian good" being ignorance and superstition, and not good! And without the Christian Right, Bush would not have had the support to invade Iraq and seriously make global matters much worse :vomit:

Good or bad, are qualities of moral, not something separate from it. To have good moral judgment is the ability to determine what will get good results. The inability to do this results in things going wrong, such as the invasion of Iraq and what has followed. That is bad moral judgment. Ignorant people are doomed to have bad moral judgment. They can be very good people and have very bad moral judgment because of their ignorance. Understanding this is essential to understanding secular morality and having a moral justice system and a moral economic system. It is essential to our liberty and democracy.

I wish we always worked with the word "moral" as we did in the recent past. We read children moral stories such as the "Little Red Hen" and asked, "what is the moral of that story". The answer is the cause and effect. That outcome can be bad, such as the fox did not get the grapes because he gave up. The "Little Engine that Could" did because he did not give up. Good moral judgment is the ability to understand those things. If we make the wrong choice things will go bad and Cicero tells us, sacrificing animals, saying prays, burning candles will not get good results from a bad choice.

When we left moral training to the church (1958) we made a terrible mistake! Christians now think their God will save their sorry asses, no matter what they do as long as they are pleasing to this God. You can be a good child of God, destroy this planet and get rewarded with heaven on a new planet. We don't need to understand how this can happen, you just need faith. And we think that education for technology that brought us to this ignorance is a good and necessary education. :rage: And Texas republicans want to be sure education continues this ignorance and the whole nation bows to it, while we ignore the needs of humans and pour money into military spending and act as though the only people who matter is US, the people blessed by God. That is bad moral judgment.

So I don't think you are getting me here. You are talking about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. That is an interesting topic. However, this particular topic is about whether bringing children into the world is considered a political ideology in itself. In other words, choosing to have a child is equivalent to saying, "I like the current society and its ways-of-life and want to make another person also go through the ways-of-life of the society". To have a child is a POLITICAL decision, one made on behalf for the child, due to an ideology that the current society is good (and good enough to force another person into it on their behalf by procreating them into the society in the first place). That is more the topic, not as much role of gender in society.

As an aside, it is an interesting debate whether having someone stay at home full time is a better arrangement than two working parents. But that would be a different topic. — schopenhauer1

Good luck having children if women are not valued as mothers. Trump has not promoted having children as national patriotism as Hitler did.

Who in a religion determines what the religion should do? If we can identify that person, perhaps that person can turn to science to explain the psychological reasons for why today's religious teachings work.

I think if we look at what science has done to our understanding of religion, we would realize, religion today is nothing as it was before the modern age.

God was more a fearsome and punishing God than a loving God, before our bellies were full, most children lived to adulthood, and our life expectancy doubled. It was science that over came the evils and that is what leads to us worship a loving God instead of fear and punishing God.

↪Athena Pythagoras thought number is the primary substance and I do not agree with him. Being, as described by Parmenides, is the primary substance. My father would always scold me because he thought I wasn't understanding basic arithmetic when I was only four years old and couldn't do so at that age because my mind wasn't prepared for it. — Michael Lee

I am listening to a show now that is attempting to answer what math is. Is math just in our minds or does it exist like Plato's forms?

It is not normal for very young children to comprehend math. While parents mean well to push their children to learn, they lack knowledge of the development of the brain, and lack knowledge of how to teach, and unfortunately have unrealistic expectations. I think this hurts children.

Yes, the question of free will matters - and that's because it serves as the basis for accountability. That doesn't imply accountability is only appropriate if there is LIBERTARIAN free will, it just means that we we are sufficiently free so that accountability is appropriate and makes a difference.

Holding people accountable serves as a mechanism for encouraging proper behavior. That's true even if determinism is true. Our (deterministic) decision-making process will then tend to take the societaly imposed consequences into account. — Relativist

That is basically the argument I would make. However, when people are mentally disturbed we should not expect them to have good judgment and incarcerating them as criminals is just wrong. Same goes for young people. We should not expect them to have the judgment of adults and punishing them as adults is just wrong. So a person's accountability is not one size fits all.