I bet that you tell that to everyone in every forum you visit! :smile: — Agent Smith

Absolutely not! I would not complement the people here if good thinking and good manners were common. In one forum I have at least 1/2 the active members on my ignore list and I finally stopped being active in the forum because the members argue as badly as bored kids in the back seat of a car. Commonly there is no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. :worry: And no understanding of what good manners have to do with good discussions and all this troubles me deeply because that means a poor understanding of democracy. Which can bring us to the topic of this thread.

Democracy is built on the belief that we are political animals by nature and that we are capable of good reasoning, there, we are capable of good government and lifting the human potential. However, from time to time people enter wars believing they are fighting for the good. What started this discussion is someone questioned if Romanticism lead to the worst human tragedies such as we saw in world wars and communist take over of Russia and China. America is struggling with its own identity right now because so many people regret slavery, the destruction of native American people, and some of our own war activity. People are opinionated and are ready to kill but is their thinking well founded in facts? I think I have concern that Romanticism is not well-grounded in facts and their good intentions, but bad reasoning, can lead to human tragedy?

Yes but it's rousseau's general will which underlines romanticism and the wars like naziism, marxism etc

Thank you for these passages. The Petrarch one is what I had in mind about renaissance. Your comments are on point. — L'éléphant

That makes me happy. To me, it means, by good reasoning, we can make things better, but now I have to ask an old Greek question. How many people make a democracy possible and does a democracy become impossible when there are too many people? Oh, oh I love this. We survive the complexity of our cities by taking thinking shortcuts, prejudices, and generalizing. That means we are not really thinking 90% of the time but are reacting. We would not have enough energy to get through the day if we were actually thinking everything threw. Especially in very large populations, we must protect ourselves by not getting too involved with others. Now you can have a wave of action, such as going to war because our social nature can overrule our capability of good reasoning. When everyone is emotionally geared for war, it is a really bad idea to say "I don't think this is a good ideal." Especially not when people are not trained for independent thinking and good manners.

Yes but it's rousseau's general will which underlines romanticism and the wars like naziism, marxism etc — Shwah

Oh my goodness, you wrote exactly what I was thinking about just a minute ago! This is so exciting! Please say more. I am not that familiar with Rousseau and have a burning desire to know more. What is this "general will"? How is it affected and can steps such as training for independent thinking and good manners, and insisting on media principles such as presenting both sides, curb the possible destructive nature of the general will?

How many people make a democracy possible and does a democracy become impossible when there are too many people? — Athena

Yes, there is such a thing as too big to make democracy work. But, the ancients never thought that any system would last permanently. So democracy shouldn't be the be all end all game. At least not in the sense of forever.

In one forum I have at least 1/2 the active members on my ignore list and I finally stopped being active in the forum because the members argue as badly as bored kids in the back seat of a car. Commonly there is no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. — Athena

Lol. This sounds like news pundits. Honestly, I don't get the "ignore list" -- I click on new posts I'm interested in. And if the posts happened to be nonsense, I just don't react to them. So I don't have an ignore list.

.

Absolutely not! — Athena

I would! :grin:

I want to make everyone happy. :lol:

Democracy — Athena

Democracy, whatever it is, seems to provide the right kinda environment for healing of a society (people can vent their frustrations. Important! Talk things out in a civilized manner. Etc.). One could perhaps look at democracy as a sanitarium of some kind for society to convalesce in). :smile:

Democracy, whatever it is, seems to provide the right kinda environment for healing of a society (people can vent their frustrations. Important! Talk things out in a civilized manner. Etc.). One could perhaps look at democracy as a sanitarium of some kind for society to convalesce in). :smile: — Agent Smith

That is the ideal, but because of rhetoric and ignorance and I want to say youth, we do not achieve that ideal. Socrates blamed Athens's democracy for the war with Sparta that it lost. That led to his student Plato writing of a Republic where decisions are made by philosophers, not everyone, and later even forefathers of the United States opposed too much democracy. The US has a limited democracy because its form of government is a Republic that is closer to Plato's rule by a chosen few. And here is where we get into trouble. Communism can be compared to Plato's Republic. Communism began with slaughtering people to impose the rule of communism.

Lol. This sounds like news pundits. I don't get the "ignore list" -- I click on new posts I'm interested in. And if the posts happened to be nonsense, I just don't react to them. So I don't have an ignore list. — L'éléphant

:lol: It is an emotional self-control problem and why I question if our good intentions can lead to a terrible tyranny. Mothers can be very "nice people" with ever good intentions and absolutely terrible tyrants with their children! We need to stop thinking of tyrants as bad people because good people with good intentions can be tyrants, and that is how we come to this thread. My saving grace is awareness of my faults and learning to live graciously as a less-than-perfect human being is a challenge.

To clarify, I don't like how the things some people say make me feel and I don't like the way I react to them, so I resolve this problem by making it impossible for me to see what they said. I am working on myself to be less emotional and more rational like some of the Asian men I have met. I don't know if it is in their genes or comes from their culture, but I love how reticent they can be. I think some people hold ideas that make them more sane. I am not sure why I am so emotionally responsive but I would like to change that. And here again, is the question of Romanticism leading to trouble. Like Hitler had good intentions but those good intentions were tied to emotions that led to terrible things.

To clarify, I don't like how the things some people say make me feel and I don't like the way I react to them, so I resolve this problem by making it impossible for me to see what they said. — Athena

Understood.

You probably won't believe me if I say you can train your emotion to be "callous" but benevolent. But it would require you to detach yourself from identifying (self-identity) with what you do -- be it employment or hobby or a membership to a club. In short, you relax your views on things and always think of walking away. (I only hold jobs that I know I could walk away from when shit hits the fan and monkey wrench thrown in for good measure. Life is too short for arts, music, games, and parties).

You probably won't believe me if I say you can train your emotion to be "callous" but benevolent. But it would require you to detach yourself from identifying (self-identity) with what you do -- be it employment or hobby or a membership to a club. In short, you relax your views on things and always think of walking away. (I only hold jobs that I know I could walk away from when shit hits the fan and monkey wrench thrown in for good measure. Life is too short for arts, music, games, and parties). — L'éléphant

I am aware of Buddhist detachment but I am not in favor of it. I want to have a sense of purpose and the people I admired most are the ones who make a difference. I think being an informed and cultured person is important. But so did Hitler. What is the trick? Is there some way we can know a person will be benevolent and not an evil everyone will regret?

I had to look for an answer to the question stimulated by @L'éléphant and pulled from @Shwah comment about Rousseau :chin: and got this explanation from google search.... I am underlining the sentence that got my attention.

The Social Contract is reinterpreted by emphasizing its relation to Rousseau's other writings and doctrines. In the spirit of Hobbesian realism, Rousseau regards natural law and other forms of “private morality” as ineffectual, invalid, and in practice dangerous tools of oppression and subversion. But, still more realistic than Hobbes, Rousseau thinks it impossible to build a nonoppressive state on men's selfish interests alone and embraces the classical view that morality or virtue is politically necessary (as well as intrinsically good). Rousseau's doctrine of the natural goodness of man, however, which traces all vice to the effects of oppression, leads him to conclude that the non-oppression more or less guaranteed by the absolute rule of general laws is also sufficient to make men virtuous. Thus Rousseau can declare law as such (General Will) infallible and “sovereign”—and he must do so in order to protect rule of law from its greatest danger, the subversive appeal to “natural law.” — Arthur M. Melzer

Okay, what is going on with Hitler, Trump and Putin? I had a Christian friend who almost swooned when she said he was a being a wonderful Father to our nation. I was shocked when no matter how terrible the news was she continued to think very highly of him. Trump began his climb to popularity with WrestleMania where he participated in the show with the brutality that makes the show popular. It is hard for me to imagine anyone not believing he is a liar and that is a complete violation of human decency but he is so popular there is serious speculation he will run for president again. Putin is appealing to his people who want to believe he is a great leader. Hitler had a large following. Socrates was angry about Athens's war with Sparta and blamed democracy for that. How does this reality fit with what Rousseau held to be true?

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain?

There is no culture without a means of transmitting the culture and right now we have nothing transmitting a culture of high morality, so there is no General Will that can protect us.

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain? — Athena

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power.

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power. — L'éléphant

On really? That is interesting. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived 300 years so we had time to learn more? That is assuming our bodies would not age. 300 years in the old body I have now would not be fun. But how we come to see things differently over time is amazing and the perspective of history is so helpful in making sense of it all.

The image of the noble savage is surely a romantic notion and there has repeatedly been the concern of civilization corrupting humans. I am most familiar with Locke's understanding of human nature and natural law. While I am aware of religious notions that justified the monarchy and aristocracy, I don't know of it having a connection with laws of nature? I have a notion of Christianity thinking the laws of God are high above the laws of nature and a God decides who will rule and who will serve. That notion goes against the laws of nature, doesn't it? I take issue with Christians because I see the religion as opposed to science and the laws of nature. The culture Christianity gave Europe was no better than the class society of Hindu India.

While I am aware of religious notions that justified the monarchy and aristocracy, I don't know of it having a connection with laws of nature? — Athena

Their conception of the "laws of nature" is connected with the divine laws (god given rights).

Their conception of the "laws of nature" is connected with the divine laws (god given rights). — L'éléphant

:yikes: Perhaps it is my prejudice that makes it impossible for me to understand how religious notions have anything to do with the laws of nature? The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. We see this opposing view in Hyprocrate's rejection of the belief that the gods cause our physical conditions. At least since Heraclitus and his conception of the cosmos as interacting forces, there was an argument against the gods being in control. Laws of nature and religion are separate belief systems. Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same.

The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. ...
Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same. — Athena

This is the Lockean conception of natural law and divine law. And no, even Locke would not associate it with superstition. Superstition associated with religion is actually looked down upon, and now in our modern times, this is one way we denigrate religiosity, by calling it superstition.
Back to John Locke. I could find the below (I have his book, but not with me) from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

John Locke (1632–1704) is among the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Two Treatises of Government, he defended the claim that men are by nature free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. He argued that people have rights, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society.
...
As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. In Locke’s theory, divine law and natural law are consistent and can overlap in content, but they are not coextensive.

Now I need to find passages for the god-given rights to monarchy and power.

I am amazed by how prejudiced my mind is. I was not always so prejudiced against revealed religion. I got here because there was a time when I thought I was possessed and being controlled by Satan and seemed to have a choice of either maintaining that belief and doing something terrible or not believing that line of reasoning. If there is no Satan and no demons, I am totally accountable for what I do. I am very glad I chose against that superstition. How can such a religion be anything but superstition because totally reliant on believing in supernatural beings? Without those supernatural beings, there is no religion.

However, before science how would we understand good and evil without believing in supernatural powers? From this window of thought, I can almost think believing the Biblical explanation of life makes sense. The foundation of thinking was not science. Today we can know what I experienced was post-trauma syndrome resulting from a medical procedure done to me before I was verbal and could understand the reasoning behind what was done to me. The preverbal child knew the world through feelings. Beings felt good or bad and there is no reasoning to explain why things feel good or bad.

So back to the subject of good becoming a terrible evil, a romantic idea of Utopia leading to pain and war and killing others. The intentions are good, and good might come out of the imagined good, but there is a fault in the reasoning. I think Aristotle explored this problem with reason? Poor information leading to bad reasoning.