It's good to interact with you again. It definitely seems that emotions have immense power. I know that I get fairly instant reactions to life events. They seem to determine the quality and nature of experience itself. I even find that I see differently and hear differently according to mood. Music seems to sound differently if I am sad or happy. — Jack Cummins

That is line with what Plato said is important about education. Education for technology lacks the wisdom of liberal education that has been passed down since Plato's time until the atomic bomb and throwing out liberal education in favor of a focus on technology.

Zeus was afraid that once we had the technology of fire we would discover all technologies and rival the gods. In his great wisdom, he gave Pandora a box full of miseries to slow down our development and delay that day when think we no longer need the gods. Plato explains the importance of music and taking care of our emotions because only when we feel good do we have good judgment. It is true for everyone, our feelings strongly influence our judgment and our health! We are unwise to focus on technology instead of our soul and the essence of being human. That leads to bad judgment and destruction.

Plato said that “music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything”.

Childhood experiences probably play an extremely significant role in forming the core frames of emotions. There does appear to be a link between childhood trauma and mental illness, including PTSD and many other issues. Stress at all times is a major trigger for becoming mental ill, but the first years may be at the core of emotional life and defense mechanisms. It is likely to be linked to the plasticity of the brain. — Jack Cummins

I am sure that is true and that is why I object to Neitzsche's notion of examining ourselves. Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” And that has value if it goes with being a philosophy student and filling the mind with those things worth thinking about and logical thinking is learned. However, without that training, well we have all heard, "garbage in garbage out". If our childhoods are terrible there ain't going to be anything good about self-examination. WE ARE NOT WHO WE THINK WE ARE WHEN OUR CHILDHOOD IS OPPRESSIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE. We are born with potential and although events can leave us badly damaged, as you said, we can be redeemed and set free by philosophy, music, the arts. I am saying every one of us is potentially a wonderful human being, but the damage we experience can make that hard to believe. However, I think there are brain disorders that may prevent some from doing well. I want to clearly separate emotional problems from organic ones.

I can see religious mythology is very helpful for some people and it does not take the work that philosophy takes. Religion is not based on truth if one reads their holy literally instead of abstractly. Therefore religion can be very problematic, so it is not the choice I wish for everyone. But being secular and not training the young for life is the worst thing! That is worse than religion.

This is Joseph Campbell's wisdom. "Myths are the guidebooks for life itself, with all its beauty and mystery. They reflect the concept of transcending duality (because while things do come in pairs and everything has its opposite, there can be no good without evil). Myths are the keys to understanding the whole of human experience."

Someone just said some very kind things to me and my whole body reacted with joy and hope. I am thinking if I grew up with such words I would be a different person. I think many of us have had destructive relationships. We may have been loved but perhaps the persons loving us were also damaged people who could not be positive and inspirational. Perhaps they too were damaged in bad relationships or something like a national economic crash or war. So here we are damaged human beings doing our best but we may lack the joy and hope that makes life feel so good and makes us attractive to others, which increases the chances of more people telling us how good we are.

Being a damaged person is unattractive so it is important we seek healing. For many, a church is the answer. Knowing how thoughts work, it is easy to see how God works, but unfortunately, the mythology that goes with that God is not acceptable to everyone. However, when we understand the power of thought we can apply it and move ourselves in the direction of healing. We can seek out people who are joyful and uplifting. We can get information from books, but it is better when it is a positive personal experience because emotions are a physical reaction, not just cerebral.

Regarding the quote, it immediately reminded me of Greek philosophy and debates. They talked about how being moral is a balance, not extremes that lead to problems as the quote explains. Hebrews and Greeks used stories to teach virtues, ethics, and morality. Ancient civilizations created gods to raise the consciousness of newly discovered concepts.

My journey to healing began with Greek gods and philosophy when I had to become my own hero, so I think there is much to talk about in your thread.

I am sorry I just can not relate to Nietzsche. Simply to be worthy of what? What is "it"?

The Greek gods were nothing like the God of Abraham so what does it mean to become gods? :confused:

for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

Zeus feared once man had the technology of fire he would learn all the other technologies and rival the gods. I think Zeus was correct and I think this has led to serious problems. The moral is, that we need the gods.

I hope you can give good arguments and also I hope you see why I am having a hard time relating to Nietzsche. I think a person's brain must be pickled in Christianity to appreciate what Nietzche is saying. I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought. Their minds don't immediately jump to the Greek gods like my mind does. Gods that are limited and like humans don't well with Neitsche's argument.

Each god is a concept and these concepts are important to us. May Appolo help us bridge our differences and find agreement. :grin: :heart:

You might find the book "God: An Anatomy" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
interesting. It deals with how the stories and concepts of what comes to be the god(s) of the Bible develop from one culture to another. As the title indicates, the focus is on gods as physical beings. — Fooloso4

That looks interesting. I looked for information about the book and that led to looking at other books. At the moment I think I would like an audiobook titled "Creating Christ How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" best. I have wanted to know more about that for many years.

That explanation kind of goes with the subject of this thread about what makes a nation great. Obviously, the US has imitated both Athens and Rome. I think we agree it is both strong leaders and the led working together that make a nation great and Rome achieved that but eventually fell. I think there are vital factors that may or may not be in the people's control such as rapid growth and not being able to find enough gold to sustain the value of coins. Essential people must be able to meet their needs and keep their children alive. That means securing a supply of clean water, sanitation, food, and a stable economy. Essential is the organization of leadership and the social organization.

I think this thread may have died and I do not know if we can go any further in an exploration of greatness? However, another exciting piece of this puzzle is the role gods have played in shaping civilizations, our evolution, and our present consciousness. Do you have any thoughts about how that subject applies to great nations? Bill Graham embedded himself with Presidents and that increased his power and the power of the men who were presidents. And of course, that power is the mass of people that followed the leaders.

From the second section on consciousness I am reminded of Dewey on the meaning of conscience (con - with, science -knowledge) to be, with the knowledge of others. What one would do if others were aware of what we are doing. — Fooloso4

OMG you excited me again! How do you come to know Dewey? :cry: Those are tears of joy. Yes, if we look at an old Webster dictionary that provides the root of words, "conscience" is [con] coming out of science and that is tied to the democratic search for truth. Now we are back to Socrates and the search for truth, to know what is real and what is not and what is good and what is not. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. This is something we can know through science. :heart: Thank you

Plato makes great use of mythos, both existing mythos and those he creates. There is a logos to mythos. Although we typically think of logos as reason and logic, its range of meaning is much greater. Etymologically its root meaning is to collect or gather. In the dialogues, however, an appeal to mythos often occurs when argument fails. — Fooloso4

Absolutely- sometimes poetry expresses a truth better than facts. We need to be sensitive to the fact that knowing facts without understanding their meaning is not that helpful. This is my concern with education for technology, especially when we went through a period of not teaching concepts and logic. A person with a high IQ can remember many facts and that is not equal to understanding concepts. Each god and goddess is a concept. They are not physically real, but as concepts, they represent a truth.

Certainly stories from one culture became part of those of other cultures, but I do not think we should think of it as plagiarism. It is, rather, closer to what happens in fashion style. — Fooloso4

Our understanding of reality might be totally different if the Hebrews who left Ur, had acknowledged the Sumerian contribution to their story of creation and the story of the flood. Just for fun, I like to consider that the story of a flood and Eden was based on actual events that got forgotten, turning an accurate account of what happened into a myth disconnected from the events. Archeologists may correct this problem.

Christians would not be happy to know several biblical stories came from Sumerian archives, not God Himself and I think truth is vital to everything. Living with a god who has favorite people and who gives these people permission to wipe out people occupying the land they want, and enslaving people and believing God is good with them treating them differently than we would be treated, continues to be a problem. While myths can contain truth, myths can also contain harmful lies. This is a problem Socrates knows well. :roll:

I thought you wanted to know more about the virtues of a warrior.

The warrior's virtue is the ideal they fight for that gives them purpose beyond themselves, beyond the abyss that war leaves man engulfed within.

143 from Joyful wisdom isn't saying "Gods are literally made this way," it's showing the basis for Polytheism is that Deities are individuals who champion ideals. Much like a warrior who champions ideals.

The easiest way to defeat warriors and Gods is to remove/replace the ideal in which they fight/stand for. — Vaskane

Is there a site address for the information you shared, or a book title? I think I want that information but the print is too small for me to read it. I tried increasing the size of the print and that made it blurry. I like books better than reading a screen.

Last night the public broadcasting channel did a show about how many places contributed to the process of going from superstition in creation stories to science. I think the information available to us today is a whole lot different from the past. This gives me a lot of hope.

About the warrior's virtues, I do not want to argue against what you said, but I want to expand upon it. I think we all do better if we have a sense that our lives have meaning and purpose. The missionary is devoted to spreading religion. Those who got democracy going were devoted to creating a new social order that they believed would better serve humanity but their resources were limited.

I like what you said of Joyful wisdom. The Capitol Building of the US has a mural of the gods they thought best served democracy. Our Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice, and Spirit of America as she is depicted in the mural, are the three aspects of Athena, the goddess of Liberty and Justice and Protector of those who stand for liberty and justice. All these images contain a sword. From here come the words "The pen is mightier than the sword". And this reasoning is about all of us having political power and responsibility. That is what makes the New Social Order so important. Together we can do more for the human potential than a god or king.

In my reading about the importance of being a warrior, it begins with physical fitness and for sure the ancient people thought that very important! There is a strong psychological impact to being physically fit. When our bodies give us feedback of strength that will lead to psychological strength as well, and now add knowledge of the virtues and understanding them to be strengths, and we get strong character committed to doing the good. Imagine how powerful a nation could be if everyone is prepared to be physically and mentally strong. That is what made us great, not war and weapons of war, and not putting ourselves first. Wow, a nation of obese people eating junk food and avoiding physical and mental activity can not be a world leader.

I can appreciate a focus on warrior virtues if includes a way of life that does not depend on war.

And while there's no motivation for an individual to become liberated, — dani

Socrates saw education as what liberates the people chained to the cave. Liberal education is about being liberated and capable of being self-governing.

All groups of people share agreements that are essential to the integrity of the group and your post is important to my effort to better understand how this group/individual thing works. We can not tolerate individuals picking weapons and committing mass murder. How do we have both, individuality and social order?

As I see it, it is more of a question of the particular person. It is connected to the Socratic claim about the examined life. What I need to be aware of may not be what you need to be aware of. — Fooloso4

I am very excited by the link I used in the reply to Vaskane because I think it is an excellent explanation of our concept of the self and the importance of being self-reflective. It certainly compliments what you have said.

quote="Fooloso4;858585"]Suppose two people grew up in the controlled environment where everything that happens to one happens to the other. In one sense their experience would be the same, but because they are different people I think their experience would be different in significant ways. Experience is not simply what happens to us, but how we react and respond.[/quote]

Absolutely true. Two people can sit side by side and watch the sunset and both will have a different experience of the sunset. My worst fights with my sister resulted from us having shared/different experiences, like Israel and Palestine have totally different stories about their shared history.

True. The most important consequence of modern liberalism, for better and for worse, might be to reorient us around the individual. Some take this so far that they reject the notion of a common good. For them the rights of the individual stands at the center. — Fooloso4

I think that was a very powerful statement. I need to chew on it for a while. It goes very well with this thread but adds more depth to the thought. You have taken a snapshot of a concept and put it in motion and I would like Hegel to jump in here and give us his take on this exchange of thought. I think we have leaped back and forth from individualism to a united force (times of war) and back to individualism, with this moment in time possibly being the most individualistic of all times. But this also puts pressure on government to enforce some kind of social order and do much more to meet individual needs.

From a young age I rejected the idea that we should start writing with an outline. For me writing is a way of thinking. — Fooloso4

Oh absolutely! No wonder we are disagreeing and getting along. We both experience thinking as an ongoing process that can lead to unexpected insights.

Which ties back into 143 from the Joyful wisdom with creating your own ideal, and the greatest utility of polytheism, a warrior fights for their ideal due to it being the transfiguring and redeeming aspect that lifts them out of the abyss of nihilism. — Vaskane

Dear Vaskane, you push me to seek knowledge that pleases me in every way. I am quite sure the Greeks were familiar with Egyptian gods and modeled their own gods after the Egyptian gods. I also believe the Sumerian gods and stories influenced the consciousness of the whole region. The Greek story of Pandora and the box paralleling the story of Adam and Eve which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of the creation of man. But I like the Greek version much better. Anyway- I found a delightful explanation of the Egyptian and Greek gods. https://philarchive.org/archive/MULTGO-13#:~:text=He%20remarks%3A%20'In%20Egyptian%2C,by%20the%20ancient%20Egyptian%20myths.

Gods were forces of nature and they balanced each other. Especially the Egyptians and Aztecs had powerful rulers whose duty was to keep chaos at bay and math was very important to their sense of order. I would like to have a better understanding of the gods as nature gods but that deviates from discussion in this thread. I love just about everything said in the link and chose this paragraph because it addresses what we are talking about here. Before this paragraph more is said of Greeks adopting the Egyptian gods.

The existence of Ma’at in Egyptian society and its myths in the meaning of both the
pharaonic and individual adherence to rules and principles to keep on the right path
reveals that most Egyptians did have a good understanding of just and unjust social
behaviour. In terms of consciousness, this implies that Egyptians were self-reflexive;
they were moral human beings capable of reflecting upon their own behaviour over a
period of time. This assertion is supported by the Italian neuroscientologist Antonio
Damasio’s theory of consciousness. In ‘The feeling of what happens’ (2000), Damasio
makes a distinction between three cumulative forms of human consciousness: 1. the
protoself: a person’s bodily state, which is the most basic representation of self. 2. The
core self: the awareness of the biological bodily state and emotions in the here and
now, which is a more evolved form of consciousness. 3. The autobiographical self: a
person’s reflection on the awareness of emotions over a longer period of time. The
autobiographical self is the third layer and most evolved form of consciousness. It
draws on memory and past experiences which involve the use of higher thought
processes. It requires a person to have a language, an autobiographical memory
capacity, and reasoning ability. Damasio believes that the autobiographical self is a
necessary condition for both rational and mythological thinking. Therefore, to his mind,
mythological thinking does not belong to a lower form of consciousness. Damasio
stresses that myths are not the product of the core self but, similar to rational thinking,
are the result of self-reflexive thoughts of the autobiographical self, which is both an
individual and a group member. An adult constructs this self with its experiences,
ideas, images, evaluations, likes, dislikes, achievements and failures. Although the
autobiographical self is unique to a person, he or she shares narratives with members
of the same peer group, community, or culture. This means that besides using our own
experiences, we include the experiences, ideologies and beliefs we inherit from
(deceased) members of our cultures, which makes us part of the larger narratives of
mankind. The autobiographical or self-reflexive self is thus the result of mythological
and logical individual thoughts of a person, whose consciousness is at the same time
constructed by and part of the collective consciousness of humanity as a whole
(Damasio 2000). — Multgo-13

I supported Womens' Lib and that resulted in me becoming "Mr. Mom" - a single parent - for a while. But life moved on in unexpected but welcome ways. — jgill

I am not sure the male experience of being Mom is the same as the female experience. That would be really hard because when women stayed home they visited each other and supported each other, and a male didn't have that kind of support. I would like to hear from both of you what it felt like to be Mom. My son also became a single parent.

I want to fall back on Confucious and the notion that strong families make the nation strong. This is another way of thinking about the opening question. "Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?"

How can we tell what is to be learned by looking inward unless we look inward? — Fooloso4

I said we start life as empty bases and living is about filling ourselves with knowledge. What do you think is inside us that we need to be aware of? I know Socrates said something about needing to know ourselves, but you are making me think about this. I feel pretty strongly that most of what has benefitted me has come from the outside, not the inside. On the other hand, I also wish my mother had been self-aware. So this really is a question about what we are shooting for.

Not all cultures emphasize the individual. Being a member of the tribe is more important than individuality in some tribes. I imagine myself working on a pyramid in Egypt and doing so with love for the pharaoh and being a part of something that involves everyone. I can think of myself in other primitive situations where just the challenge of surviving gets all my attention. Or there is the Buddhist bent of being egoless. I think of death and being one with the universe. What is that separates us from God/the universe, but our illusion of being separate?

This is a moment to surprise. I thought I knew what I thought but I am not at all sure I do know what I think. :chin:

That is a very important question and as @Fooloso4 explains, the answer is complex because we have different natures and we change as we age.

I think we can think of our lives as being empty vases when we are conceived. This is the beginning of Ero's but at this stage, there are no words. It will be many years before a child has a vocabulary and there is no conceptual thinking without words. Not until age thirty is a person prepared enough to participate in philosophy and not all will be attracted to philosophical thinking.

Think of the cave. How old are those people chained to the wall? At this stage, education is about breaking those chains and freeing individuals. This is the opposite of education up to this point because the individual does not have the necessary critical thinking potential until 30 years of age.

Here is a good explanation.

Education in music for the soul and gymnastics for the body, Socrates says, is the way to shape the guardians' character correctly and thereby prevent them from terrorizing the citizens. Thus, the guardians' education is primarily moral in nature, emphasizing the blind acceptance of beliefs and behaviors rather than the ability to think critically and independently. — Ariel Dillon

Religions tend to begin and stop with this primary education. No thinking required. Just trust in God and obey His word.

A mother hating herself and a mother hating something about herself are not the same. The latter is a practice of love, the former need not be. If it is, it is misdirected. I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, as the artist of my own life, the form it has taken is not something foreseen or foreknown. — Fooloso4

That is an interesting distinction. I never thought of that before.

I don't know if I understand the form that life has taken is something unforeseen, but I remember a few times I was totally surprised by a turn my life had taken. And here is a problem I have with Neitzche. I don't think we should look inside to determine who we are. Number one, in our younger years, we don't know enough about life to know if we are fish or fowl. We need to experience life to learn what turns us on and what infuriates us. A coach or a teacher can make a huge difference in how we see our potential.

For darn sure women's lib changed my experience of being a woman. I crashed from being a Mother Goddess to "just a housewife". It is not all about what we were born with. How we were parented, and the station of life we were born into, and the period of history we were born into affect our knowledge of life and ourselves.

Very important to me is how the child is educated. A child who does not learn how to have good moral judgment, and does not learn of virtues and principles is not a well-educated human.

Pray tell, what is to be learned by looking inward?

Don't get me wrong Athena in that I am very aware of the truth of 'those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.' I am not saying that the thoughts and fables of the ancients have no value, but I am saying that they are not good enough to form the basis of our moral codes or human rights or global constitution or prime directives, in our spacefaring future as one united species. — universeness

Now that I have to argue against and it goes with the subject of this thread. Who makes war, individuals or the whole bloody civilization? :rofl: so after deleting my very long argument, I am wondering how to shorten it. :grimace: I think I need to start a thread for war. I am totally fascinated by war.

I do not believe there are any Spartan-like nations today, even though modern nations are organized Military Industrial Complexs. In general, I think secular populations are opposed to war unless attacked. I have to clarify secular because the religious folks can so easily be convinced that God wants them to fight against evil. I think their war god is behind the centuries of war they have had. I am not convinced that this hateful behavior is because Adam and Eve and all their offspring are the evil. The Mongols may have wrongfully killed a lot of people and wrongfully enslaved those they did not kill. but can that history be repeated today? A huge concern in the past was that civilized people would become soft and weak and easy to conquer. If it were not for their religious justifications for war, I don't think these people would favor war unless they had no choice but to defend themselves and their allies.

I see the internet as a way to end wars. If the mothers around the world could communicate with each other, I think they would be as opposed to war as the women of Sparta. When we can all know each other as well as we know our neighbors we will be in a New Age that can not relate to the history we have had. Today we have the history of Germany, the first Military Industrial Complex to make better decisions, we just ignore that history unless an individual has a reason to know why we adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.

Yipes out of time- It is possible to know more today than we ever could and I honestly believe if we survive global warming there will be a New Age where ignorance will not lead to war.

BUT, not the classics, they must make room for the new enlightenments to come. — universeness

Oh my dear, I think I have to argue against that notion, but then I am afraid I will have to argue against myself when I criticize the warrior mentality. :lol: Wow am I confused at the moment! I think this is going to take a lot of work. Socrates might appreciate my dilemma. He was very concerned about the stories we tell and their effect.

On the other hand, I am very excited about how much our consciousness has changed and the direction it is going. I am fully expecting a New Age where our consciousness will be so changed people can no longer relate to our past.

For sure it is past my bed time and I have obligations tomorrow. It is nice to be sure of some things and not completely lost in unknowns. Good night.

Nietzsche takes an exhortation from the Greek poet Pindar:

Become who you are.

To know and to be who you are is a struggle. It takes honesty. We too easily lie to ourselves about ourselves. And honesty takes courage. The warrior's virtue.

To become who you are requires becoming an enemy to that which you come to hate about yourself. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who, unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false. — Fooloso4

Now that is something to talk about. Shall we begin with why a mother must hate herself and how this is going to help her?

I am 77 years old and most of my time is spent with older people. Some of us agree that we are just beginning to get things figured out. None of us want to go back to the mentality we had when we were young and I don't think I want to go back to a time before computers and the internet. The people I know are not into the forums but I think on-line forums are the most important part of my life right now. How is a younger person or a person without modern communication technology supposed to know much of anything? What history should they know to have perspective? How do the young go about knowing who they are before they have the life experience that is essential to knowing?

I am all in favor of virtues but really war? Do you think war makes a man a better husband and father? How does war benefit women and children? Hum, I think we need a thread to get deeply into the value of war and being a warrior to question why it has been so much a part of our history. How about mountain climbing? I think there is value in putting our lives on the line, but maybe we want to do this in a way that is not destructive? It might even be said, it takes more courage to face life than run up a hill with a machine gun while bullets are flying everywhere.

Thank you for pushing the subject. I need to know more about the virtues of a warrior before I say more so I picked up a book and it is exactly what I need to read to a man who has been bedridden for months because of a stroke. He has given up and somehow I have to reach his spirit that can turn him around because the process of decline and death is very slow. Warning, if a person is not willing to fight for his/her life make sure there is a "Do Not Resuscitate" request registered because if a person does not have that, everything will be done to keep the person alive and living may mean being bed ridden and completely incapable of caring for oneself and living out the rest of life without the ability to communicate. I don't think my friend would have chosen to live if he knew what he knows now. Anyway, what I read in the book tonight might help. But so far, nothing I read will help a mother be a better mother and so that mentality may not serve the whole of society.

I apologize for getting defensive over Nietzsche's works. I'm high functioning on the spectrum. High — Vaskane

No problem at all. It is an honor to converse with someone who is well-informed and my goodness you brought some very interesting concepts into this discussion!

With that information, I can see there is so much more to explore and I am drowning in books not knowing which one I want to focus on, but the information about Jews is very exciting!!! Like I need one more thing to think about. :chin: Even though I think the mythology of the God of Abraham is one of the worst things to happen to humanity, I almost worship Daniel Kahneman. "Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American author, psychologist and economist notable for his work on hedonic psychology, psychology of judgment and decision-making. He is also known for his work in behavioral economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Wikipedia"

Makes me want to dig deeper into the religion and search for what has inspired these men. While the intellectual history of Germany is also very impressive. What a petri dish of great thinking! Oh dear, too many thoughts. When the Hebrews transitioned from nomadic herders to farmers it was a moral crisis. No longer did they share everything in common. Property ownership became vital and that led to a war god when those with the most powerful god won the wars. And here you come with "God is dead"! :gasp:

How about sitting in a large mountain cabin with a spread of food and trying to unravel all of this? My head is swimming in thoughts!

I love the mention of projecting ourselves into others. :starstruck: Back to Socrates and the cave and determining what is real. Back to Nietzsche, how do we know our enemy? Are we sure we are not projecting ourselves into the "enemy"?

What do you like about that talk of enemies and war? Maybe this subject deserves another thread? I see value in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and Daniele Bolelli's "On the Warrior's Path" and Roman soldiers in their short, metal, and leather uniforms are a real turn on, but I just don't resonate with Neitschz. You know when you pick up a book it is an unpleasant chore to read, instead of a pleasure.

Strange how we react differently to different subjects and authors, but I am unaware of any woman who likes Nietzsche. I think there is something about being male that makes Nietzsche attractive?

I don't understand the "controversy." Some individuals may be considered "great." Clearly, it doesn't follow from this that "we" are "great." Neither does the fact that "we" are great mean that each of us are "great." — Ciceronianus

That was a nice play on the meaning of greatness.

For me, the subject is just something to think about because in the process of thinking the small thought grows, like a piece of bubble gum gets bigger when our saliva blends with it. Then as we chew on it it gets smaller again. Hopefully, we find a small peppercorn of truth that is worth our effort. I am just totally amazed by what happens to our thinking when we share our thoughts. I think this is what Jefferson and Cicero, meant by "the pursuit of happiness" that began in China, India, and Greece 2,500 years ago.

Are organisations like NATO or the 6 retail shops owned by the family of a friend of mine, also 'conscious life forms?' — universeness

I would say so. My family is an organization and I am the matriarch. :lol: Oh my goodness one thought leads to another. My X was in a hurry to prove he was a man by having a son. I have heard something about survival of the fittest involving males competing for females so their superior gene line is the one that is reproduced. However, animals don't conceptualize their behavior and I think a conceptual form needs concepts.

My goodness, I am amazed by all the concepts involved. In part, this is also about notions of superiority.
Who deserves to survive and who can we eliminate and who gets to judge? Is it important to save all languages and therefore all tribal concepts of human life and is it a tragedy if a tribe dies with no recorded memory? In the TV shows I watch, there are people who take such matters very seriously.

You are correct that Christianity is bad for education. But don't you see this is intentional? Smart, logical, and well-educated people, who avoid logical fallacies, would immediately realized the Christian mythic stories are false, would reject the religion to become agnostic, or Taoist or something, or atheist.

All life forms want to survive. Organizations are conscious life forms (see hive mind, see my posts on super-conscious beings). We unite in a common identity and birth a higher order of intelligence that we are linked to, and it wants to grow and survive, and will manipulate its "parts" (the humans that comprise its body, who unite under that identity) to defend itself from death. Christianity -- the organization's consciousness -- is deliberately sabotaging the educational system to keep people dumb enough to still embrace that religion. It must to survive. It dominates our politics (since most politicians identify as Christian) enough to basically have carte blanche over our educational system. — ken2esq

Yes, group identity gives us an immortality and many have died to maintain the conscious life form. For me, that group organization is democracy. Not the US but democracy as a concept coming out of Athens but also observed in tribal units around the world. It is just that Athens gave us a lot of philosophy that shapes our democracy.

Lately, the TV programs I watch have been about group identity and injustices done to the different racial groups. This search for a separate identity is curious to me. In grade school, a teacher told us of our migration from Europe and she told us to ask our parents what country we came from. When I asked my mother what we are she got indignant and said we are Hnienz 57 varieties. That is the melting pot of the US. I have no idea where my family came from and I don't care! I rather define who I am with virtues, morals, and philosophy bonded together with a notion of democracy. If anyone was discriminated against it was women! I remember when if women worked, they did low-paying jobs. Teachers were paid so poorly, my teacher grandmother was put in the welfare part of a nursing home and these people were fed last.

We are so far from a shared history, as each group has its own sad story. :cry: What about human history that includes everyone? When did humans not compete for land and resources? Figuring out how to trade and prosper is also part of that history. I do not mean to be disrespectful but I wonder about a shared consciousness that includes everyone. Is that possible?

It seems to me, in my lifetime, our shared consciousness has changed a lot! I think we are in the resurrection with archeologists, anthropologists, and related sciences bringing the past into the present and it is our task to rethink everything and develop a new consciousness of the New Age.

I find what you said agreeable. I was never out to prove a point. I just thought the subject would be interesting.

I think we can agree HIS STORY gave the impression that one man led and the rest followed. That is just too simple and perhaps not the best explanation of reality. I lean towards sociology and that we all play a part in history. Some leaders bring out the best in us and some bring out the worst in us and some are just ignored.

When it comes to Nietzsche I think he had a few million followers who never read a thing he said. Some of his ideas were picked up and carried completely out of context and this was very much part of the Nazi period with all its violence and finally war.

suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together. — Tom Storm

I think the "Great Story" was the strong emotions during a time of war and the end of that war. My mother sang for USO shows and my father served in Germany and their patriotism was very much a part of their lives. My mother was so hurt when people started protesting against the Vietnam war. She asked how these people could turn against our own nation. Whereas, I had a boyfriend who was determined to be a police officer so he could avoid the draft and later when we learned we had been lied to, well, who would not want to return to a time when we thought we were the best nation that ever was. Different generations, different emotional experiences and I can certainly see how powerful it is to talk of being Great again. That is all about emotions, not facts and reasoning.

However, I do think the US had/has some greatness that made it a deserving world leader. That would be a very complicated discussion with ups and downs and changing points of view. I rather put a discussion about that in a thread about "democracy" where everyone understood the subject is "democracy" NOT the US and not a political discussion. Democracy was a new social order and that is a different subject.

When we entered the world wars we believed our defense depended on patriotic citizens and education was the strongest institution for preparing us for war. That national defense education was totally different from education for technology and depending on technology for national defense. I want to talk about Jefferson and education and defending our democracy but that is loosely related to this thread's topic and I am out of time.

[12] Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life — Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Huh? The world was full of people who thought they were spiritual beings along with all of life being animated by spirit. The Egyptians had a trinity of the soul. When a person died that was part of the soul. The next part was judged and may or may not go into the afterlife and the final part of the soul always returned to the source. This is more in line with Hinduism, from one come the many.

Believing we are separate from the source might be problematic? The bible explanation of this is unbelievable. I like the story of Pandora and the Box better than the story of Adam and Eve, which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of many gods. Zeus was afraid that with the technology of fire, man would discover all the other technologies and turn their backs on the gods. Zeus was right.:grin:

That is a lot of reading. It is very interesting but I am a mother and have a radically different point of view. I think Genghis Khan was a fascinating person too but I would not want to be one of his wives. When I read all of Nietzche's blustering, my opinion of males crashes and I have to work at remembering men can be good for some things and they are not all complete jerks. :lol: One of my favorite professors told me I am castrating bitch, and forgive me, but I do have my reasoning for this. Boudicca was also a bitch to the Romans as she fought for her people.

I am doing my best to own up to how feelings are affecting my reasoning. Neitzche brings out the warrior in me.

In the talk of "The Greatest Utility of Polytheism", I immediately thought of the polytheist Greeks and their ideals. Spartans and Athenians had very different ideals but held one in common- loyalty to their city-state and fellow citizens. To whom is Neitzsche loyal?

On the wall above my computer desk is a list of virtues. I wonder how many of them Nietzsche would value? There was a time when we thought of virtues as strengths, and I have often been accused of being condescending because when I am acting on a virtue I don't question myself. I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Neitzche because I am being virtuous and that is all that matters, not how others feel and what they need does not matter. That may not be a good character trait. Something may be missing?

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first. :lol: When I enter a courtroom or the Social Security Office and the security guard asks me if I have a weapon, I say "only my tongue". But I take no pride in being mouthy. I rather be known for having good reasoning, so if you can argue against my different point of view, that would be pleasing. Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

I'm not quite sure how Nietzsche is lumped into the prior when he himself discusses the latter. — Vaskane

His Superman is not exactly my idea of a good neighbor. I do not agree with Nietzche about other animals not having morality. I do not think other animals contemplate right from wrong, but all social animals must consider others because social animals depend on each other for survival.

Interestingly the Puritans had an interesting notion of God choosing people and those who are chosen seem very much to me like Nietzche's Superman.

But Calvin also taught that God, in his infinite mercy, would spare a small number of "elect" individuals from the fate of eternal hellfire that all mankind, owing to their corrupt natures, justly deserved. That elect group of "saints" would be blessed, at some point in their lives, by a profound sense of inner assurance that they possessed God's "saving grace." This dawning of hope was the experience of conversion, which might come upon individuals suddenly or gradually, in their earliest youth or even in the moments before death. It is important to emphasize to students that, in the Calvinist scheme, God decided who would be saved or damned before the beginning of history--and that this decision would not be affected by how human beings behaved during their lives. The God of Calvin (and the Puritans) did not give "extra credit"--nor, indeed, any credit--for the good works that men and women performed during their lives. — Christine Leigh Heyrman

That does not go well with some people's understanding of social justice.

I am very glad Socrates insisted he did not know because I sure do not know and hope to learn from the discussion. I am seeing different notions of superiority and I question if they are justified.

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks. — mcdoodle

What is happening in the US right now causes me to fear mob psychology and a lack of independent reasoning.

My original question begins with not knowing enough about the Enlightenment and why it would stress the individual separate from relationships with others. Our entrance into the Industrial Age was brutal. Applying Darwinism to humans and justifying the exploitation of the lower class is becoming unacceptable to a growing number of people. I think science is moving us in the direction of better social justice but I have concerns about how this works out economically.

I wish I could experience Scandinavia. I have good stories of how well it is meeting human needs, but I do not enough about how that works. I came across some information that schools are transmitting a culture of neighbors taking care of neighbors. This might be contrasted to the competitive education in the US, leaving some neighbors to throw the other under the train if that is what it takes to get ahead. Culture is always on my mind. How we feel about things and each other is very important to our spirit and our decisions.

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So no pharaoh built a pyramid but the masses built it? I have always had a problem with how we tell history. It presents a totally unrealistic understanding of history.

leverage point — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is that word again "leverage". how does it come that people are using that word? I am questioning a consciousness shift. Of what I think is happening is happening, that would be very exciting. What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

but they only have this power because that leverage point exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Delicious. :heart: What if we had a better understanding of such leverage points? I am coming from LuckyR's quote from Steve Jobs about the "form". There is a very long history behind the development of computers but it was not until recently that our lives are all about computers. It seems like magic how computers have taken over the whole world and might it be helpful if we had a better understanding of leverage points and form better?

How can we govern ourselves wisely when our understanding of reality is so poor?

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995 — LuckyR

I like Socrates and Plato and Steve Jobs use the word "form". My mother was a keypunch operator long before we had personal computers. That is she used a machine to put holes in a card, that was then used to give the computer information. That was a very old technology and something really magical happened in Silicon Valley. I am not sure what gave our high-tech society its form but it pleases me to wonder about that.

. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. — Tom Storm

OMG you have stimulated so many thoughts in my head. :heart: And this one really leaped out at me. Athens like most ancient civilizations created their gods as they realized the need for them. Athena was changed by the war with Persia so that when the Persians destroyed her temple, it was rebuilt with a completely new understanding of the gods. Apolla came at a time of chaos that demanded a system of reason and this is part of the dramatically changed explanation of all the gods. It is really exciting to think of all this with your comment on the personification of an era. The people of Athens were using human-like gods to give life a new explanation. Does that match what you said or have I misunderstood you?

A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence. — Tom Storm

Because of just watching an explanation of Socrates and "the good", your words have me asking "what is the good". The information I am drawn to at this time is how harmful some colleges have become in destroying the notion that we can prove the good as we can prove a triangle is a triangle or define what is beauty. Education in the US has thrown the nation into a period of transition, chaos has taken over and this demands a strong person who can keep us from self-destructing. That underlines your final statement. "Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence" and plays nicely with your comment about tribalism. We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos.

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

Here is a link to a free philosophy course, and the particular lecture that includes a map of reality that is crucial to our understanding of just about everything else. The important explanation is about 10 minutes into the video and takes about 10 minutes to explain. https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/introduction-to-western-philosophy

Here is a link to making a conceptual map of your life.

https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com/concept-map-your-life-to-check-if-you-are-doing-what-is-meaningful-to-you-baebdf6f72b

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations. — LuckyR

You pose a very interesting question and I feel compelled to chase it down the rabbit hole.

Someone who dropped out of school in the 8th grade, or a 19-year-old, or an immigrant who comes here with nothing can become a successful business person. What we do not seem to know today is, what character and opportunity have to do with this outcome, rather than being a welfare recipient or worse a homeless person unable to meet the basic needs of survival. Our ability to have so much success today, maybe our history of opening up a frontier and the self-sufficient culture we once had. Or I could be a nut case because I am so passionate about what character has to do with everything, and therefore believe our education for technology and leaving moral training to the church has brought us to a crisis.

I am afraid the US is educating its people to be like a third-world country, dependent on outsiders to provide us with industry. Being a total genius does not equal success if the genius must depend on someone else to provide the jobs. My father worked on Apollo and when that program winded down it was a huge crisis for highly specialized neighbors who had to move to find employment. I think technology has given us totally unrealistic expectations of what it can do for us. Sort of like worshipping a false god and greatly increasing social instability and subsequent social problems.

PS. The smart-ass bankers high on coke, who figured out how to greatly increase bank profits and their kickback, by screwing over trusting people, was a national shame. Education must be about more than technology.

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it. — NOS4A2

I don't think I agree with what you said but maybe that is my failure to fully understand your point. I don't imagine myself as separate as I think you are saying, we are separate. I believe in cohorts that tend to define us without us being aware of how our history is shaping us. When we come of age we don't know enough about life to make choices with knowledge of how they will affect us. Especially if we do not attempt to know ourselves as Socrates would have us do. I think most people are reactive like a dog, with little awareness of themselves. Especially because we no longer have liberal education to free us from our chains.

You know the cave? We are all sitting in it together. It takes a lot of work to break those chains and be liberated by the light. But loving our pharaoh and helping build his pyramid could be a wonderful experience, unlike the cave, so I don't know if I am in total agreement with Socrates either. I just don't think the individual is the basis of anything important. Can you explain away my confusion?

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be. — 0 thru 9

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together.

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression. — ChatteringMonkey

You just put words to a very difficult concept. Very nice! I love your reference to evolution.

It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion. — LuckyR

That is a good point. I like that, now the TV programming I watch is stressing the truth of what you have said. Again and again, I have watched the stories of scientific discoveries resulting from the unexpected happening, and the experienced scientist realizing the importance of that unexpected information. Often these are people who do not know how to resolve a problem but because they just don't give up, they eventually figure things out. So it is a combination of character, learned knowledge, and good luck!

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today. — Vera Mont

I like the thoughts you expressed. That notion of when we die, whatever effect that we have had on the world continues. That was very important to the original Greek thoughts about education and democracy and the importance of music and always asking "what is the good" and acting on that thought.

That's odd. Others might find it more sensible to consider "the message of the gospel" as you put it as being merely derivative of these systems, which after all had existed for centuries before the gospels were written, or for that matter as derivative of the Western philosophical systems such as Stoicism, which also preceded the gospels by hundreds of years. Establishing that Christianity borrowed heavily from other religions or philosophical traditions wouldn't seem to indicate there's anything unique about it. — Ciceronianus

Plato has been left out and he seems to have been as concerned about the 10 commandments as Moses was but he came to this reasoning without an encounter with the God of Abraham.

Personally, I favor the Eastern gifts of knowledge over the Bible and I don't think it is possible to have a good understanding of Jesus without the Eastern perspective. I think the Eastern perspective is more compatible with democracy than the Bible because of the Eastern explanation of how we become better human beings that is not dependent on superstitious notions of needing to be "saved".

Thank you. I guess I am working on the background information now but this sure is an uphill battle because most people seem to believe what we have today is new and improved and the past has nothing to offer us. :lol: I have to laugh at myself because I feel cursed by what I have learned from old books. But if learn more philosophy and more about the proper form I can only become a better person, even if I fail to save the world for my grandchildren and their children.

And I really am thankful for your words and will enjoy contemplating the best way to work myself as I drift off to sleep. You made me realize that is doable. Perhaps I just need to be more realistic.