Religions generally abhor humour as it can expose the absurdity of their tenets. — A Seagull

I agree with that notion.

People who can't laugh at themselves are scary. Can you imagine a laughing suicide bomber?

↪Athena I am a so-called "bipolar" man, and I possess knowledge. — Michael Lee

Okay. My daughter says I am bipolar and that could be. But a bipolar god? I was joking when I suggested God is bipolar.

↪alcontali
OK. We are saying that in some sense Islamic law is a formal system. However, I think you would agree that it is not a formal system in the same sense as in math. I did a quick search and pulled out this from a different thread:
Mathematics is pure symbol manipulation, i.e. language expressions. It does not take any sensory input. Therefore, it is pure reason.
— alcontali
This seems accurate to me. So when we say that Islamic law is a formal system it seems to me that we are making an analogy: Islamic law mirrors some /many of the attributes/behavior/qualities of a formal system. Your thoughts? — EricH

Wow, are we in favor of robots ruling because they would be pure reason without sensory input? If we are judging religions, I think it is very important to value sensory input. Not to do that would so be as cold as the extermination of Jews. Simply a practical decision. "This year bad weather destroyed the crops so we need to kill 5000 people so those who remain will have enough food and stay healthy".

All truths can be found in the Bible. That means it also contradicts itself. The biggest contradiction is God is jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing, to God is loving and forgiving. Maybe He is bipolar? :lol:

:lol: You didn't get I speak of cohorts and cultural change because I have lived through that? Women my age over 70, are homeless and dying on the streets because they obeyed social dictates to get married and have children and stay home to care for the family. That is what a good woman did and few of them had any other choice because of discrimination against them. Do you have any memory of that past? I got a good grade in one of my college classes, where I did absolutely nothing to get a good grade, not even attend class, because I got married and it was the professor's policy to give us a good grade if we got married. That was a junior college that didn't matter. Women were not allowed to enter some colleges and even after getting a degree, they were not allowed the same job opportunities as men. Now you tell me what choices would you make in that reality?

Why should we enforce some values on everyone? Someone has to care for the children and there is an important difference between giving children a home life or institutionalizing them. Homemakers played an extremely important role in society and I am not sure we are better off without them.

Individual people disagreeing is not the whole story though. People do disagree, all the time, but if they want to be part of a moral community they have to accept that the group can come to a different agreement about a particular matter. The way those disagreements get settled is the group coming to an agreement, by whatever process that is. — ChatteringMonkey

The gods argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning and democracy is an imitation of the gods. Ideally, we argue until we have a consensus on the best reasoning.

I felt the need to create this tread as a reaction or continuation to some of the recent discussion on morality, and specifically the anscombe thread.

So the problem secular morality faces, is, I think, that it is the successor of religious moralities where morality was founded in metaphysics, with God as the pinacle of that metaphysics. Every tradition not only had it's prescriptive rules, but also it 'discriptive' myth where the morality flowed from. Now this is important I think, not only did they say "you have to do this because God says so", they invariably embedded it in a story so people would buy into it more readily. So the purpose to all of this, is to give a morality authority. You need to follow it because it's true.

Now historically, christianity, with it's valuation of truthfullness, was involuntarily the germ from which the scientic method sprung. Faith in God wasn't enough anymore, God needed to be proven with reason, just to be sure. In came Hume who was fed up with spastic scolastic attempts to prove God, and he showed that ought didn't follow from is. (as an aside, he meant this only as a rebutal of direct logical deduction of ought from is, as rationalist were prone to do in his time. I don't think this implies that 'was is' can't have an effect on 'what should be').

So as scientific thinking progresses, what we end up with is a morality that had lost it's foundation. Kant, allegedly awoken from his slumber, thought he could step in and save to day by subsitituting God with pure reason. Apparently he was only half-awake though, as he didn't notice that God was indeed dead.

What this all means, I think, is that we need to bite the bullet, and reconcile with the fact that morality isn't and can't be true or false. Because what is even worse than a mere lack of Godly authority, is lying to people about the origins of morality and people finding out. And people will find out any new attempts at founding morality in made-up metaphysics because, by now, a scientific mindset is ingrained. But but... what are we to do then, we cannot accept the conclusion that anything goes. Surely relativism is even worse then lying to people? Well no, because if people find out, you end up not only with relativism, but with a relativism of the rebelious kind.

From an atheistic perspective one has to wonder how non-existing Gods managed to come up with reasonably functioning moralities through-out history. People did all of that even then, so surely it should be possible to do something like that now, content-wise. I'd argue we can do a lot better, because for the first time in history, we actually start to 'know' some things about the world. As to the question of how we are going to imbue those moralities with the necessary authority? Same as we allways did, we discuss these things with other people, come to some agreements and found institutions that can settle disputes if need be... this is basicly social contract-theory. The authority is in the morality being supported by the community.

And eventhough these are 'merely' created moralities, and so not true in any objective sense, I'm not all that worried of relativism. There's enough convergence in what people want - certainly now that we will have a progressively better understanding of humanity - that it will mostly end up in something that works fine if people are educated in and accustomed to the idea of it. — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is a better place to start a discussion of secular morality. Cicero studied in Athens and I think he made an important contribution to our understanding of why we are moral and why our judgment is sometimes wrong. Daniel Webster wrote "Education, to accomplish the ends of good government, should be universally diffused." I think our liberty and democracy depends on such education.

Has it been mentioned that we are born into a particular time and each cohort is different? We are all shaped by the historical events that occur when we come of age. I am a baby boomer and we experienced the protest of Vietnam. We learned we had been lied to. Also at that time there was talk of overpopulation and we had the birth control pill and sexual freedom. I think the hippie movement was a direct result of a booming economy and our parent's experience with the Great Depression and then war only now times were good and we thought "no one born white and middle class could experience poverty". It is not really poverty unless the economy collapses and there are no jobs and one doesn't have middle-class parents to call for help. We acknowledge the good life was dependent on being white.

My children's generation came of age during the Great Recession, and corruption was in the news, the young could not be assimilated into mainstream society because of there were no jobs for them and in Oregon, two-parent families could not get public assistance, so father's abandoned their families because they had to, and young lovers did not get married. All this lead to serious social problems. We announced a national youth crisis that swept the country as the Hippie movement did.

Without question, we live in a very different society today. Traditional values have been destroyed and few women want to be "just a housewife". More women are choosing not to have children at all. Instead of a focus on liberty, we have a focus on security and we have been giving up liberty ever since 911. We can't even talk about many things because the young have no memory of the past and the meaning of our words and values are so changed, we have lost the ability to communicate across generations.

I am horrified that after our commitment to liberty so many people look forward to a day when robots will control our lives!

Definition of liberty
1: the quality or state of being free:
a: the power to do as one pleases
b: freedom from physical restraint
c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic (see DESPOT sense 1) control
d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e: the power of choice — Mayor of Simpleton

:lol: The definition of bread, does not provide the knowledge of how to make bread. That definition of liberty is just as lacking. Without knowledge and virtues, instead of getting the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges a person could end up in a personal hell incapable of accessing any or those benefits.

I wish everyone had as much contact with the homeless people as my granddaughter who works with the homeless. Trust me, these are not people who just don't want to work. They are mostly really messed up in the head. I challenge everyone to spend 6 months as a homeless person. It is a life-changing experience and for most people, it is like being trapped in hell and not knowing the way out. The middle-class people are dependent on the social benefits they take for granted and may lack the virtues that enable a person to pass through adversity and come out smelling like a rose.

That definition of liberty could be homelessness, no job, and no property to care for.

Yes, according to you, what does morality have to do with liberty and democracy? I am curious about your precise opinion. What is the core value in morality? Who put it there? Not god, please let's not get silly. How do we decide what is moral and what is not? What is it in a moral action that separates it from a simply good action? If I see a man drowning in a river, and I jump in the foaming waves, and save him, was that moral, or good? If either, why, and why not the other?

Put it to liberty and democracy. What is a good citizen to do that is moral? Why is his moral action moral, and not simply good? What is the difference between a good social act, and a moral social act?

And if there is a difference that you can find, Athena, who is the authority that decides with you? Are you the decision maker, or is there an objectively measured, always-true benchmark to separate the good from the moral? If not, why are we talking about morals in the first place? — god must be atheist

:lol: Is it necessary to draw a line between good and moral? I think our democracy starts with the reasoning of Greek philosophers and Aristotle gave us the category of ethics. Ethics according to Aristotle is a question of the good. When we go further along this line of reasoning it follows that ethical actions require virtues. Virtues may begin as a thought of what is good but that isn't enough. I may want to save the drowning man, but I am afraid I would recoil in fear of my own life. To do better requires the virtue of courage. That is a feeling, not just a thought. I would gain courage by acting courageously repeatedly and in time it would become a habit and a true feeling of courage.

The goal stated by Aristotle is human excellence. Aristotle believed it is human nature to strive for excellence and I agree with him. I have no doubt that are plenty of people how don't come anywhere close to excellent. Here we can fall back on Gibran who wrote when we feel good we do good. I went through a long period when I felt terrible about myself and life. I could not possibly have done much good at that time. It is like being lost in hell. However, feeling bad and failing in life is the flip side of wanting to be excellent. All that negativity is pain and not knowing the way out, and is not proof that it isn't our nature to want to be an excellent example of a human being.

Sorry for being so wordy but answering your questions is kind of explaining a loaf of bread. Bread is not just ingredients but also the interaction of ingredients, kneading, letting the dough rest and the yeast to rise. Morals, ethics, virtues, the moment in time and the act all go together like the ingredients of bread. If the process of making bread isn't done right, it doesn't come out right. That is so true for human excellence and when our culture embraces that, we optimize liberty and have democracy.

A moral is a matter of cause and effect. We used to read children stories like the Little Red Hen and the Little Engine that Could. At the end of the story, we would ask, what is the moral of that story. The answer would be a cause and an effect. No one would help the Little Red Hen make bread so she didn't share it. In a democracy, we must share in the work and we share the benefits.

Liberty is the right to determine what is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do. What will get good results? The problem here is the person may not have enough information to have good moral judgment, and that is what makes education, and culture, essential to good moral judgment, liberty, and democracy.

So we may not want the 1% running our government because decisions made for a profit might cost those who are not part of the decision making too much! That 1% might make decisions that cost people their lives, destroy the environment, or destroy the future of the following generations. Monarchies had that problem and democracy is supposed to be the solution, but without education for democracy and good moral judgment, democracy fails.

How did I do in answering your questions?

... and freedom does not? — Mayor of Simpleton

No it does not. If freedom has conditions it is not freedom. So it is desirable to stay in the parents home and be free as long as the parents don't interfere with that freedom.

That is equal to having a job that is defined by someone else without having a say in what the controlling policy should be. This is acceptable as long as s/he believes the money earned gives him/her freedom, or if everyone else is doing it. And if the employer is unethical and the business practices are causing people to become diabetic and die early, or increasing the number of people who develop diabetes, or people are loosing their homes and the rich get richer by buying up the property, etc. so what, we are just doing what we are told to do, and as long as we have the good life, that is all than matters and we can forget about the politics that can make a difference, because we are all free! That is freedom. It is not liberty. Go out and vote for the person you believe will give you the most freedom and live with your parents if they give you more freedom.

And education for that, does not defend our liberty and democracy. :chin:

"The single biggest obstacle to make progress in the war efforts in Viet Nam is presented by the public resistance at home", the White House announced. (News, 1980.)

As you can see, the danger lies at home, always at home, always, always, always at home; but what someone considers danger to be, is always different. "Where you stand is determined by where you sit."

So you see, Athena, there used to be a voice heard once in America; the voice of the people. But they poof-poofed them down, one-by-one, like they do rabid dogs: JFK, MLK, MTK, FTC. What are we left with? KFC and Walmart.
— god must be atheist

"How many would act morally if the law did not exist?" The answer is, it depends on their culture and their culture depends on their education. And the "they" that shoots me down is people in forums who don't get what morality has to do with liberty and democracy and don't want to talk about it.

The important question is, did humans evolve or were they created special by a God who then cursed them resulting all our suffering, because we are sinful and can not do better without supernatural intervention. Can human beings achieve excellence without the help of a supernatural power or are they doomed by a condition of sin and must they have authority above them and must that authority hold the ability to punish them to control them? And is education for technology enough?

I suppose 5 semesters at a university focusing what is now an incompleted BA in Political Science that was shifted to a B.S in Philosophy (seriously... a B.S. in Philosophy ;) ) doesn't count. — Mayor of Simpleton

I want to cancel the rest of my day and stay with you. :love: Oh my goodness shall we compare each other's education and see what get? Mine was gerontology and public policy and administration. I was never depressed as much as when I went into the public policy and administration program. Don't tell anyone but if I were to join a violent revolution, I would begin by burning the colleges down. Okay, my love, what did you learn? :grin:

Just as a heads-up for the future, take care in what you assume about posters in this forum. It was a bit hasty to make such an assumption about me based upon very little data. Perhaps the rub here is that I haven't read the books about politics that you have read or endorse or maybe I have? — Mayor of Simpleton

I am sure you have not. I am 15 credits short of a degree because I refused to bend to the system and instead chose to stand against it. OMG, I am more of a rebel than when I was young because of returning to school after having children, and from this more mature position, what I learned about our white middle-class education and public policy. Part of my passion is the result of buying old books about education to understand what it meant to defend democracy in the classroom and old books about Germany because I knew we adopted the German model of education. You said I should not assume, but I would really be shocked if we shared the same books!

I indicated that I'm not interested in turning this in the direction of a political debate, but rather stay closer to the topic. Especially one so obvious located in just current affairs in the US. — Mayor of Simpleton

:broken: What goes up must come down. I just crashed and burned. I think I better pick up my toys and go home. I don't know what meaning you all think this topic has if it is not our liberty and democracy and standing in the world, and I will not force myself on anyone.

To be clear, I still have abnormally high levels of passion. Aside from working my full-time job and generally keeping my life going ahead full steam, I've "written two books" (eh...) and "made a video game" (kinda) over the past three years. I'm just far less optimistic and energetic and bright and hopeful than I used to be, and I see that downward trend as leading toward what I've observed many other people had already become decades earlier in their lives; and from that, I conclude that the thing that makes so many other people so dulled and lifeless isn't some flaw internal to themselves, but just the result of life grinding them down a lot earlier than it did me.

And consequently, that we can get people to recover that childlike positivity by helping them to heal from the traumas of life. The penultimate essay of my philosophy book, On Empowerment, is all about that. — Pfhorrest

Ok, and that is exactly what my understanding of liberty and democracy is all about- having that wonderful feeling that we matter and we are capable of doing something important. That is the argument made in the Declaration of Independence. That was what education prepared our young for when my grandmother was a teacher. A favorite story in my home was of a retarded boy who found it hard to keep up in school (the meaning of retarded) but was amazing when it came to carving a monkey out of a pit. The teacher held up what he could do and made his accomplishment equal to any other. Our notion of equality had nothing to do with being the same, except under the sun we are all equal, however, each one of us is special in our own way. A teacher's job was to help a child discover his/her special interests and talents and then nourish them.

:cry: That is not what IQ testing and Core education are about. And the difference is a huge change in culture-making us the enemy we defeated in two world wars. Our liberty is being crushed as we prepare the young to be products for industry, and that industry is run by policy and we have absolutely no say in that policy. We are now marginalizing people as Europe did but we stood against, with privacy laws that really protected our privacy and prevented anyone from discrimination against us because of something we did in the past that is kept in a file.

What has happened to the US is extremely depressing and is exactly what the Prussians did to Germany. Our sense of powerlessness is a rational conclusion in this industrial and political climate. But in threads like this one, we can exercise hope of returning to the democracy, with liberty, that we once had. Here we can talk about what virtues and morals have to do with liberty and democracy. Here we can connect with other people who might pick up the cause and become a part of a new American Revolution which is not violent but a return to the intellectual revolution that began our democracy. AND THAT WAS NOT CHRISTIANITY! . The more voices that repeat the messages, the more power the movement will have. Around the world, it is very important everyone stops seeing us as a Satanic evil and once again sees us as a highly moral nation that stands for liberty, truth and what is good and right (ethics).

I would say that the Western concept of enlightenment is quite different from that of the Eastern. The Eastern is based on emptiness, which may possess a liberating quality, however, it still exists within a religious framework and bound to a hierarchical authority system and dogmatism — praxis

Which religion?

I know I have a problem with Buddhism because I have a problem with being a passive observer and disassociating myself with social and political events but paradoxically my home is full of Buddha figures reminding me of serenity and joy. I must agree with you about east and west enlightenment being different. I did not think of that before posting. Actually I didn't think at all, but just reacted to my passion. My bad.

May I humbly suggest that a likely reason that people are like that is that life has beat them down too much. Children are naturally curious and love to learn, until life beats that out of them. I was fortunate to have maintained many (positive) child-like qualities into my early adulthood, and other adults around me seemed like they had been blunted somehow. I used to think that that was because I was better in some way than them, but as I've gotten older and older, life has begun to blunt me in similar ways that I remember seeing in others back then, and I realize now that most people just suffer too much trauma (at the hands of people who are themselves reacting to their own traumas, generation over generation) in their lives to maintain that child-like "innocence", that desire and ability to learn and teach and be helpful and useful to others. — Pfhorrest

Keep in mind those who thought democracy was a good idea were only a handful of people, but they united and shared the cause of throwing off the existing power, and then they remained devoted to manifesting a new way of life. That is simplistic, but it is possible to become passionate about liberty and democracy and to experience waking every morning to share that passion. Today books that give me hope of a new American Revolution are appearing in book stores. I had almost given up as moderators threatened to ban me and some did ban me, and people constantly attack me for what I say. But the books started to appear. I am not alone but right now we are outnumbered.

You may have a completely different passion. I am also passionate about teaching good health practices and if you look for something to feel passionate about and don't find it, check your health habits. It is hard to feel positive when our energy level is low and we just what to curl up in a cave and get away from it all.

The horse will go in the direction it wills?

A moral system is a system of principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one’s overall perspective. — Mayor of Simpleton

A system is not unstructured. The God of Abraham religions have structured moral systems. Philosophy does not have that kind of structure, although Aristotle is responsible for structuring logic and dividing areas of thought in such a way that gives each area of thought a degree of structure. For example, Aristotle gave us physics, metaphysics, and ethics. Ethics being the study of what is good. I am sensitive to this distinction between structured and unstructured morality because democracy does not have a Bible, but is large collection of Greek and Roman classics and later books advancing western culture as it was shaped by Christianity. This important difference between structured and more or less unstructured morality leaves us not understanding what morals have to do with liberty and democracy. and leaves us stuck with a myth that our success is the result of Christianity and it is Christianity that makes us better than the rest of the world. :grimace:

Now as to how many morals system govern one's behaviour is a larger question. One can indeed have individual morals systems, yet find themself living within the matrix of a much larger morals system, such as a government of law. — Mayor of Simpleton

:gasp: You don't read many political books do you? The US government has not been about morals for many years. Defending that statement could take this thread way off-topic, so I will restrain myself, but government is more about power than morality. I think in our past literate people were far more concerned with morals than they are today but the war changed everything, just as war changed Athens.

It seems to me what you are pointing out is that we should indeed look into various sources in an effort to refine our ability to act virtuous... only problem here is virtue a fixed point of moral behaviour or is virtue something relative to the context in which one find's themself (as in what can in one case be a virtue prove to be a vice in a differing context)? — Mayor of Simpleton

A virtue is an internalized concept. There are many virtues. Assertiveness is one of them, I choose this one to demonstrate the importance of developing a virtue by intentionally acting on the concept until it becomes a habit and automatic response. We can understand assertiveness as standing up for ourselves and what we believe is important. We can know it by knowing its opposite, being afraid to speak up and feeling powerless and then perhaps becoming angry and acting inappropriately. It may take courage to be assertive, if one is not in the habit of being assertive, or has not gotten a good response to being assertive. In this case, speaking up is frightening and we have to muster all the courage we have to behave in a way we do not normally behave. However, with practice, we can gain confidence, and one day realize we are speaking up for ourselves and what we believe without fear.

We call our criminal justice system a correction system, but in most places, it does nothing to correct the problems that are manifested in harmful behavior. I am sure Socrates would declare our justice system unjust, because it is geared to punish and inflict pain, not to correct an individual's knowledge of life and self. Our education for good citizenship and good moral judgment, prevented social problems, but today we think education is about preparing our young to be products for industry, and we think someone who speaks against it is just old and doesn't value technology. :lol: Sorry I am ranting. Back to your thoughts....

It seems to me what you are pointing out is that we should indeed look into various sources in an effort to refine our ability to act virtuous... only problem here is virtue a fixed point of moral behaviour or is virtue something relative to the context in which one find's themself (as in what can in one case be a virtue prove to be a vice in a differing context)? — Mayor of Simpleton

:chin: To respond to your concern that a virtue could be a vice....

"Why Aristotle Was Right: The Power Of Balance - Anthony ...medium.com › why-aristotle-was-right-the-power-of-balance-b743f8...
Mar 6, 2017 - “Virtue is the golden mean between two vices, the one of excess and the ... in order to find happiness, people should always strive for a balance ..."

If liberty is to be the goal of individual empowerment, that would imply that liberty is a power and with maximum liberty often being the goal, so back to the maxim with this revision... — Mayor of Simpleton

Liberty is not freedom. Liberty comes with responsibility. It seems pretty clear to me the present problem is a lack of understanding. Just how much responsibility do you want? :smile: As a female, I could dodge a lot of responsibility by being an obedient wife. But when I became the president of the Toastmister Club, I took on a lot of responsibility. :lol: One might ask who is the slave, when realizing the responsibility of leadership is giving service and delegating duties to people willing to accept them. Leadership is not a power trip that flatters the ego. But not all people in power are good leaders, some are tyrants with big egos and when the majority do not understand what we are talking about here, it is likely the president will be a tyrant.

Others may view this good leadership as someone with a strong hand and making concrete decisions. — Mayor of Simpleton

They do not understand liberty and democracy and they probably rely on a Father in the sky and look forward to His kingdom. :zip:

↪Athena can you explain why you are talking about democracy? I didn't mention, or infer it. — Punshhh

I am sorry. It seems somehow the concept of enlightenment came up and from there I was compelled to mention what enlightenment has to do with liberty and democracy. If you would like I will see I can get the post deleted.

quote="Athena;386083"]What is a moral system? — Mayor of Simpleton

I don't really find this too difficult to answer on the surface.

Morals are value assertions related to what is good or bad/right or wrong.

Ethics is the field of study regarding these morals.[/quote]

I am quoting you so I can find this spot in the thread when I have time to read and respond. I wish there were a better way to do this. If anyone knows of a better way, please PM me.

Life can so interfere with our discussions. :worry: There must be a better way to identify our place in the discussions so it is easy to get back. :lol:

So is society itself a sort of ideology, a sort of "brand" that we as individuals perpetuate through the gateway of birth? It has a way-of-life. By constantly birthing people, we are clearly buying into it. Sure, we might want to change parts of how the backbone runs (free health care vs. private, etc) but generally speaking, the whole pie itself of society (work, entertainment, maintenance/increase comfort levels) seems to be shared by all. Thus, birth essentially pushes this ideology unto a new generation. I think it is an ideology, forced in perpetuity on others. More work, more entertainment, more going to die hacking it in the wilderness if you don't like. There is no option for the no option (non-birth). Once born, you're living the ideology out until you don't (that is you die). — schopenhauer1

You have missed something very important. The US is not the democracy we inherited because of the deliberate manipulation of a few and ignorance of the masses.

The US is what it defended its democracy against and thinking we are the democracy we defended in two world wars is a huge mistake! This change happened the same way Prussia took over Germany and turned it into the strongest military-industrial complex in the world, requiring a united world action to shut it down. If the US had not gotten involved, it would still be the strongest military-industrial complex, not the US. It was the Prussians who turned Germany into a military-industrial complex, not the whole of Germany choosing to take that path. It is people understanding that military-industrial complex, running the US today, not those literate in Greek and Roman classics and who are committed to an enlightened population capable of having liberty and being self-governing.

That is the importance of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Complete cultural change.

I think it would be worth pointing out at this stage that the word Enlightenment is a blanket term used to describe a wide spectrum of exalted states. It will cause numerous disagreements unless the users specify what they mean by it.
For example, does it mean one who attains Nirvana? Or does it refer to someone who achieves some degree of Samadhi? Both entirely different states, one requiring a Nirvanic realm of existence, the other requiring no spiritual realm at all, necessarily. — Punshhh

Excuse me, but I have to get political here. No one saw democracy in the bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Our Statue of Liberty holds a book because enlightenment is the result of gaining knowledge. The democracy we inherited came from the renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment= literacy in Greek and Roman classics and increasingly scientific knowledge. Modernity follows picking up where the Greeks and Romans left off when Rome fell and Christianity took over.

That argument may not fit in this thread but it is important to understanding the democracy we inherited and we need to defend it before we loose it. Enlightenment has everything to do with our liberty and a nation of human excellence capable of liberty and being self-governing. The Spirit of American brandishes the Sword of Justice in the mural of the gods in the US Capitol building. These are more eastern concepts than western Christianity. :zip:

I don't know if this was intended in the OP but is the distinction eastern and/vs western philosophy valid? — TheMadFool

Absolutely. The east has a circular wholistic logic and in the west logic is closed and linear. Western thinking is very materialistic and that makes Christianity a paradoxical mode of thinking, because believing in unseen supernatural beings is not materialistic.

This western logic is completely rejecting of belief systems involving an animated earth and earth as one living organism until parts of this notion are empirically evident. Empirically the laws of physics, not the laws of spirit. Western logic seriously set back our ability to see how nature works together and what we were doing to the environment and our planet. It continues to blind us to some truths. This is still be a serious problem, especially for Christians who believe in supernatural powers but not an earthly spiritual reality where man is a part of nature, not separate from it.

Yes, I like that :rofl: well said - and i agree - as we get older we are better able to integrate and unify ideas, and deal with situations, and that is a form of enlightenment.

So you are saying there are many forms of enlightenment?? — Pop

Well, you worded what I was trying to say much better. Thank you.

About different kinds of enlightenment I don't know. I just know my own experience and thinking this has to be an experience of enlightenment. For me, it is like a light turns on in my head and I see things more clearly, but this does not last. It becomes as old new as soon as the thought is assimilated and indistinguishable from just thinking.

I have had what may be called transcendental experiences and I would classify that just as an unusual experience. Especially one changed my perspective but being unusual I can't really trust it.

I have read there is new research into the possibility of using psychedelic drugs to resolve some mental issues that are proving very promising and from what I have heard of them, my transcendental experience would be more along the line of a drug-induced experience. But I have not done psychedelics so I can not really compare that with your explanation of enlightenment of unified ideas and a greater understanding of the complexity.

Since this is an eastern philosophy thread, I would say eastern consciousness may increase the chances of having a transcendental experience because of opening the mind to that possibility. Every culture has a subconscious and our cultures dictate what is taboo and what is okay. I think if a person has a closed mind, enlightenment or a transcendental experience is unlikely. I think we have an element in our western culture that closes people's minds.

I am posting so this so it shows up in my comments, and I can easily find it. I really want to return to this thread when I am well-rested. It looks like you are serious thinkers worth reading.

Reading the last line

The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. — schopenhauer1

presses me to say, every society has a subconscious just like individuals and from time to time they need psychoanalysis when their behavior indicates the entity is having a serious problem! The US is in desperate need of psychoanalysis because it is not the democracy it defended in two world wars and it is no longer united and ideologically strong but is divided and destroying itself.

Finally can anybody tell me the difference between enlightenment, and the delusion that you are enlightened??? — Pop

Being enlightened is a personal perspective. Being deluded is someone else's perspective. :lol:

On a more serious side but definitely related- is the aha moments we all have, and for many of us, these aha moments become more profound in our later years. It is a sudden awareness that our consciousness has definitely expanded. This is not an additional thought, but a new understanding as thoughts come together.

The young assimilate facts, but in our later years, ideas in our heads seem to suddenly come together in a new awareness with greater meaning that is more than the sum of the parts. Such as realizing a discussion of virtues could be more productive than a discussion of morals without at the same time holding a concept of virtues and how a person becomes more virtuous. And a notion of consciousness being limited to experience, seems essential to any discussion of morals. That is morality becomes an increasingly complex concept, meaning something very different from the less complex concept of moral. That is enlightenment and it is more likely to be experienced later in life.

Excuse me, are you speaking of Jesus or some other God?

How will this God manifest? I mean is He going to sit on a thrown like Zeus, or walk in a garden with us? This something out of nothing or how does this work? Is this God going to appear as an angel and then disappear? Will He appear like a human and show us the holes in his hands? How does this work? Maybe we should be looking for a burning bush with a big booming voice?

Can a god be made manifest and be a universal force at the same time? If a god takes physical form will His consciousness change?

Whoops, I am in trouble of this god is a she and I just pissed her off by assuming she is a male.

I find this the given to be for any individual very difficult to admit and next to impossible to try an overcome, yet this sort of "given" results in us asking question or making an accusation that without a moral system one cannot possibly be moral. — Mayor of Simpleton

What is a moral system?

Just this morning while listening to a lecture about Aristotle and ethics, I got we can learn virtues and we can develop our ability to habitually react virtuously. But that may not be a moral system such as we may find a moral system in a holy book. It does, however, lead to liberty and good leadership.

We have forgotten in a democracy we seek to elect good leaders and leaders are made strong by our willingness to follow. While at the same time our own desire to be an excellent human being should mean preparing ourselves to lead. :chin: Hum, we need to be good followers and prepared to lead. Our ability to be a good human is based on virtues, and one of the virtues is to expand our consciousness so we have good moral judgment. That is not exactly memorizing the 10 commandments, nor praying to a god to make things right.

We can overcome being virtually weak by exercising a virtue until it is a strong part of who we are. We can expand our consciousness by traveling, reading books, going to college, carefully choose media that is informative. We seriously need to improve knowledge of this and then working conditions and salaries so the average person has the opportunity to travel and learn through various means.

A democracy is about enabling the most people to make their best contribution to the democracy. Our supreme court has not been ruling for this goal, when it rules in favor of large corporations and declares using money to get desired laws is freedom of speech. That ruling should make it instantly clear that it means the poor and unincorporated citizens, do not have freedom of speech because they can not pay enough to be heard.

My old books give lists of the characteristics of democracy. Would those lists be a moral system? If so shouldn't that moral system be taught?

The problem with education in North America is not the heavy leaning on SAT subjects; it is a problem of heavy leaning on making the kids do mindless busy work. To give them homework that they can copy and paste from wikipaedia, instead of giving them age-appropriate logic problems that will exercise their brains, not their ability to cheat. — god must be atheist

Perhaps we should have a thread for education? Do you watch movies about teachers who have made a real difference in students' lives? I love these movies, besides having a library filled with books about education.

What has happened to education since 1958 is a horror story, and well-meaning writers of what has gone wrong with education have created a myth that is part of the problem. The myth is about industrial leaders wanting students prepared to do mindless work in factories. Before the first world war, those industrial leaders wanted to close the schools when we mobilized for war, claiming education was not giving them their monies worth, and that the war had caused a labor shortage. Child labor laws were relatively new, and industry would have loved to closed schools and return to child labor. This history is very ugly and well worth our attention because the autocratic mentality that exploits human beings is still with us. It is a history capitalist do not want us to think about.

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens was good for making patriotic citizens. We seriously need to be clear on this! Up to this time education as about Americanizing the mass of immigrants andpreparing the young to be good citizens in a democracy. The only technology children learned was reading, writing, speaking skills, and math. Our military force was in a huge crisis because the modern war, with typewriters, trucks and such things demanded a trained workforce that could use all this technology and build bridges, repair trucks. For the first time, in 1917 vocational training was added to public education. Later, it was the technology of the second world war that completely brought education for citizenship to an end with a focus on technology for military and industrial purposes.

If you care, please, come look at my books. :sad: I know that is not practical, but maybe I can figure out how to get the copier working and post pages from the books? In my mind, I am fighting to preserve the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. I would like to create a miracle before the next national election.

We have a serious problem in Texas that stands against higher order thinking skills, is behind things like no child left behind, increasing control of education and CORE education. This is the problem of which you speak and is about the Military Industrial Complex controlling education, our nation and the world. The most threatening danger to our country is not forgien. It is internal.

If the law didnt exist than morality as we know it wouldnt exist and we would be naturally inclined towards whichever universal law holds sway in whichever dimension we are apart of. We are moral because it is a universal law, and nature compels us to be moral as an end in itself; Its not out of self interest. Those who are moral out of self interest like politicians are actually not moral in themselves but only appear to be moral. — One piece

Universal laws exist but our knowledge of them is incomplete and most certainly the knowledge we have is not universally known. We are not born with this knowledge, only the ability to learn. Previous to 1958 public education in the US attempted to prepare the young for well rounded individual growth capable of independent thinking and good moral judgment. The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, as dogs are taught to obey commands. The void in their education was left to the church and now our democracy is in crisis.

While I certainly agree that concern for morality is important, life has beat me down when it comes to being optimistic about MOST people being INTERESTED enough to actually engage and analyze their morals (they would agree that morality is very important to them, but as soon as we begin to question and analyze, they want no part of it). — ZhouBoTong

That is a total bummer! Lets us work on that problem and see how much we can eliminate that in our lives. Some people may not like this but eliminating it in our lives, involves not associating with people who are not willing to think about what they think and lack an appreciation of virtues. Creating some social pressure on everyone to make the effort to strive for excellence and creating a support group that supports that effort.

Dang, I like talking philosophy here much better than in real life! I can be very picky and annoying, and I could care less about my tone, so thank you for keeping things pleasant :smile: — ZhouBoTong

Wow, that is not usually how people react to me. I am accused of being offensive, and condescending and other unpleasant things. I think how we are judged depends a lot on the people judging us. These people usually can not argue the subject but make personal attacks. They are fast thinkers and reactionary. There is a saying, "Do not argue with ignorance". To take care of ourselves, we need to avoid these people except maybe as friends to do simple things with, like go to a movie or play cards. For discussions, we need to find people who are thrilled to shared thoughts and have good virtues. They need to be slow thinkers who question what they think they know and are open to different insights. We have not educated for this since 1958, and this is causing a serious social problem as Germany had when Hitler took over.

I am a little confused here, because your previous paragraph described a scenario where the power was illegitimate and tyrannical. So you agree with all those wives who just stuck with their horrifically abusive husbands until death? We don't think they should have left after day 1? I get the culture was different so that was not an option, but I don't see how that example leads to us learning the importance of submitting to power? — ZhouBoTong

Oh my, you opened another can of worms! Male and female relations, what it means to be manly and a woman and family responsibility and economics. :roll: In my grandmother's day well-bred women were closer to 30 years old before marriage and having children and they did not have sex outside of marriage. Can you think of any benefits for that?

I was bloody horrified to see my daughter acting as though virginity and marriage didn't matter, and then she had a slave/master relationship with her husband, several years after "women's liberation". How could she betray the movement like that? It has something to do with growing up in an amoral society where the young were taught, with today's technology they are smarter and superior to older people. Excuse me, but our society is in a real mess right now. We are functioning at the level of animals, not civilized human beings. I am not saying, the past you speak of, was better. I am saying the masses were poorly educated and we didn't have an economy to support independent career women, so acting on instinct, not reason, was part of the times. Human beings are not born nice. We have to learn how to be excellent human beings or that won't happen.

Surely we all have different opinions on "family duty" and "good"...? — ZhouBoTong

That should not be. Concepts of family duty are concepts of civilization. But then we are not living a shared concept of family, are we? A technological family is any combination of people we want to put together. There are some big problems with that notion. That subject needs its own thread. Warning that subject can be very ugly because when we are not organized by family, how are we organized?

I am happy to. Be warned that I don't accept any moral theory as "right" because it was popular in the past. Any people are "judged" within the time they lived, but any morals are analyzed as completely as possible (they can be "judged" from a modern perspective). — ZhouBoTong

Our democracy and liberty are defended by literacy in Greek and Roman classics and we have destroyed that, throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and wisdom gained from that accumulated knowledge, just as it happened when Christians took over when Rome became weak. :grin: The best way to learn history is to repeat it. :lol:

It is as Zeus feared, With the knowledge of the technology of fire we have discovered all other technologies and now we rival the gods. We are technologically smart but lack the wisdom essential to a good life.

My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

I would love to invite everyone to the community room where I live and we could eat snacks while listening to lectures about Aristotle and then discuss them. This is essential to understanding our democracy and liberty and political aim.

The Puritans and Quakers were competing with each other to produce the most Saints. Methodist believed they had a method of manifesting excellent humans. The effort of manifesting excellent humans begins with Greek philosophy, not the Bible. Greek philosophy is about human excellence and so democracy.

Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

Back in the day when we thought literacy in Greek and Roman classics was essential to our democracy, we thought virtues were synonymous with strength. There is a Bahia' women who made and cards and videos to help people learn the virtues. Knowing a virtue is only the beginning of developing it in oneself. To become an excellent human requires knowing the virtues and practicing them. Through this process, a person finds it easier and easier to be a well developed virtuous person.

I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve. — Mayor of Simpleton

It became obvious to me that textbooks Americanized and updated the wording of essential information resulting in that information being disconnected from the past, and this results in a collapse of that knowledge because it looses its importance. It is important if God said it, or if our founding fathers said it, or this is the way of the tribe.... how do I say? In our ignorance, we stop valuing the words of the past and get the notion we are superior and don't need knowledge developed over thousands of years in the distant past.

Yipes time! I got to go.

Oh, dear Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school? — god must be atheist

:love: What is important is teaching the young how to think, not what to think. Education for technology is all about teaching them what to think, and Core education coming from Texas is a huge evil that is very destructive to our democracy. Now get in line soldier, for yours is to do or die, not to question why, and don't worry Trump has everything handled, and soon we will have robots controlling everything.. Isn't that wonderful? :smirk:

How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education? — god must be atheist

OMG :love: I may fall in love with you with questions like that. :lol:

Your answer begins with Socrates, and Cicero and finally the reasoning for our liberty and democracy and Thomas Jefferson's fight to have free public education and therefore an educated society capable of having liberty and being self-governing. Jefferson thought that education was essential to having a strong united nation. I wish everyone asked questions about education because I fully agree with Jefferson and if we knew the history of Germany and its Military-Industrial Complex and the rise of Hitler, we might have a better understanding of what is happening to our country. We replaced the education we had with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose in 1958. , and left moral training to the church as was done in Germany. We also replaced reliance on Greek philosophy with reliance on German philosophy.

That is major cultural change and increasing the power of the church to define good and evil, has us where Germany was as it manifested its Military Industrial Complex, or what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. We are no longer united but we are very divided and our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were. We are no longer the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. There is a moral lesson in what I am saying.

If you click on the red letter you will get your quote. You speak of your consciousness when making choices, or at least that is how I understand your words.

Socrates was most concerned with raising our consciousness so that we might have better judgment and before we became enthralled with the Germans and their powerful Military Industrial Complex, we were focused on Greek philosophy and had education for well rounded individual growth, focused on teaching concepts and preparing the young for good moral judgment. This goes with Cicero a Roman statesman who studied in Athens, and the observation that we are compelled to do the right thing and if we fail to do so, the problem is our ignorance of what is the right thing. Not that long ago, even those who dropped out of school in the 8th grade to go to work, thought ignorance was the root of evil.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C). — Qwex

I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.

Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion. — Michael S. Schneider

There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.

I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking.

Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing?

I think we have agreements but I want to tweak on what you said.

Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. — Congau

Might we change the word "conduct" to individual "consciousness"?

It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it. — Congau

It is morally right to defend one's self, one's family, one's group. This defense may include taking another life, in times of war, it is mandatory. In the days of dueling, dueling was considered moral and the way to maintain morals. Not everyone agreed with that, but I think that is a legitimate point of view.

In Socrates' day, there was an argument that justice is an eye for an eye and this was met with Socrates' argument that justice never harms someone but always lefts the person up, and I like the way Greeks included Greek ideas in the teachings of Jesus when they wrote the Bible.

Maybe there is a morality and a higher morality? If we are amoral, moral, highly moral, it is a matter of consciousness, right? That makes morality a matter of education and until 1958 the US had education for good moral judgment. Back in the day, we had a very different culture, but we stopped transmitting that culture in 1958, in favor of preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values, an amoral education manifesting an amoral culture, leading to a police state and Christians being sure we are in the last days. :chin:

If there were a society of angels, no laws would be necessary since it would be perfectly moral anyway. — Congau

Satan is one of the angels, isn't he? People have fought wars over if Jesus is God or the Son of God, but how was He created differently than Satan? That could lead us off topic but confronting religion seems a necessary part of speaking of morals because education since 1958 has resulted in thinking morals are a religious matter not a matter of logic, and that is terrible for our understanding of liberty and democracy. :grimace:

The laws are there to take care of those relatively few who wouldn’t. Social conventions would regulate much of our behavior in the absence of law, and the intuitive sense of morality that many people have, would stop them from being immoral. — Congau

When I was young and learning to drive, I was a terrible driver! I was compelled to take corners way to fast until finally, I failed to make it around a corner. Anyone who has raised children knows they hear the words, but they don't understand the reasoning. "Stay out of the street" does not give the child an understanding of the command. We need to put a fence around young children and we need to leash our dogs because neither understand the reasoning for desired behaviors and they follow what they feel compelled to do, as I did until I didn't make it around a corner. Using words to declare a law, and attempting to enforce them with punishments, is somewhat useful but not always effective. A fully conscious person would be compelled to make the right decision (Cicero). There is your angel if you like, a fully conscious being. Young children can not possibly have that consciousness and even at age 30 we do not have as much consciousness as we hopefully have at age 70.

PS I think our education and criminal justice system suck. :rage:

Your post is excellent. We do not normally think of animals being "moral" but all social animals have agreements about good social behavior and they enforce them. In the book "Science of Good and Evil" this is called pre-moral. It is essential to all social animal's survival to be accepted by the group, and hopefully in the inner circle (high status), so even if we did not have language, we would have "natural law" compelling us to get along.

I would imagine, even in a anarchist government, a subset of the population would rise up and become vigilantes and for lack of a better phrase "lynch mob justice". No offense intended, it just so happens to be an extremely common historical concept all through out history. — christian2017

How full is your belly and how safe do you feel? We are nice to each other when our bellies are full and we feel safe. Hunger and insecurity lead to a very different consciousness and therefore different behaviors. When we are hungry enough, parents begin leaving their children in the forest to fend for themselves. We are wrong to take our civility for granted. But this is different from the point of the prison experiment.

The behavior of the prisoners and the behavior of the guards was the result of how each reacted to the other. As Trump seems to become increasingly an egomaniac to some, we might want to be aware of what happens when a person has more and more power. Any of us would loose a sense of boundaries if we began to think nothing stood in our way of getting want we want. We should be careful about electing rich people who understand power, but not boundaries, for they become tyrants and threaten democracy and sometimes the world.

On the other hand, the prisoner's experience is one of powerlessness. If I can't even use the toilet without your permission, pleasing you will become very important to me, and if you do not have very strong moral standards and boundaries, you will react to the signals of my powerlessness as your power, just like Trump. It is an interaction between the powerful and powerless that drives each into more extreme behaviors.

Good gravy, :yikes: I am now thinking the democrat and republican parties look like the prison experiment.