Because we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? It's honestly getting painful to continue to exchange with you. — Wosret

Right. Now that you let off a little heat, hopefully we can return to a civilised discussion.

You're just repeating yourself, you never answered my questions about why this even matters, nor addressed my criticism that information isn't without interpretation, and the tools people has for more realistic, reasonable interpretations were far fewer than what exists today. — Wosret

Well you yourself answered the first question. It matters because it will enable us to prevent the collapse of our civilisation, and it will enable us to build communities in which people can live good, decent and reasonable lives. As for how this is to be done, the answer is by first learning from the past, which is what we're doing here.

Information isn't without interpretation I agree. However, you have to realise that we have the writings of historians who witnessed those events, and they describe what happened. The fact that they noticed moral decay in their society is a fact. It's unquestionable. It's not something that can be interpreted. Something that is up to interpretation for example, is why did moral decay occur? Some say because of relaxed religious control, others because of too much well being, others because of orientation towards money rather than virtue, etc.

They still believed in that shit — Wosret

Proof?

Plato never struck me as particularly impressive, or interesting like Aristotle did (he was a twat), but it's mainly their scope of topics, and how little there was to know about anything at the time. — Wosret

Well he certainly struck some of the greatest minds in Western history as impressive, including Schopenhauer, and Wittgenstein...

It's impossible to become a polymath today, because each field is far too developed and complex. — Wosret

No, that's not true. It's impossible to become a polymath because society doesn't want it. It wants to mass produce workers, not geniuses. Our whole educational system is set up in such a way that is not conducive to the production of genius. To become a genius you have to be devoted to study. People today go to schools or universities and they party, get drunk, etc. (and when they don't do that, useless information and rule-following is enforced upon them) Of course they won't become geniuses... what are you even thinking. No doubt no more geniuses exist in such a culture. Genius requires hard work and total dedication, not fucking around.

Like elemental, or humorous imbalances. — Wosret

Those theories are not that far off to be honest. Of course it doesn't have the predictive power of modern medicine, nor a detail of the actual mechanisms of disease, but it's a good first attempt, which still makes some sense if you don't read it literarily.

A few centuries about if you read a few dozen books you'd know everything that was known about everything. — Wosret

This is very shallow thinking :S

Yeah, I'm sure you're great. — Wosret

What does my greatness or lack of it have to do with philosophy or with our arguments? :S

ecause we know far more about nature now than we ever did in the past. Do you really dispute this? — Wosret

We know more about the physical sciences, but we have lost the knowledge we had about spiritual and moral matters.

Do you think these people are happy Wosret? Is this the good life to you? Are these people really more knowledeable about their nature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hFDiqHGTXM

It

So you don't agree, some information doesn't require interpretation, and people directly perceive the causes of events.

Aristotle it's less clear, as he was certainly a naturalist, but not by discarding the supernatural as a separate domain to the empirical natural world, but by attempting to fuse the two. He definitely believed in a god, and inherent purpose in nature, though I don't recall him saying much about spirits. Plato on the other hand, Socrates definitely thought that he was on a divine mission, that he heard the voice of a spirit, his daemon, and believed in gods, and an immortal soul. Funny you'd hold the greeks up so highly though, considering how gay they were. Have you read the symposium? It gets pretty gay there near the end. Plato, I'll say seemed to be in favor of equality for women, far more so than Aristotle, but Aristotle was more feminine, for sure. He dressed flamboyantly, cared a lot about his looks, mourned his hair loss, and spoke with a lisp, which became emulated, and was responsible for the perception of the intelligentsia as feminine, which was later adopted by the gay community.

We seem to have different historical heroes.

More conspiracies... there are sociological studies that show that conservatives are just more afraid of things than liberals, and tend to perceive things as more threatening. Scoring much lower on "openness to new experiences". Stop being so paranoid, and thinking everything conspiracies.

No, elemental, and humorous imbalances is ripe nonsense, something someone comes up with when they have no fucking clue.

What do you have to show for apprehending that golden lost knowledge besides a feeling of superiority? Could you actually present an excellence that produces any kind of effectiveness, or dividends? How could you demonstrate it distinct from a delusional conceit?

Do you think these people are happy Wosret? Is this the good life to you? Are these people really more knowledeable about their nature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hFDiqHGTXM — Agustino

Those people all look fairly attractive, so I would say that they are probably fairly happy, and emotionally well adjusted.

Have you read the symposium? — Wosret

Yep, that's one of the major reasons why I consider homosexuality to be a minor sin only. In fact, I'd argue that young men should be gay in the sense that they shouldn't be interested in women, but rather in their own development until a certain age. Their own development occurs better amongst males. Young men should learn the art of fighting, should do sports and develop their bodies, and should become enterprising and disciplined people, ready to make a name for themselves in life.

So you don't agree, some information doesn't require interpretation, and people directly perceive the causes of events. — Wosret

Some information is just re-statement of facts. And yes I do believe there are such things as facts, although I agree that facts can be interpreted in different contexts/ways.

Aristotle it's less clear, as he was certainly a naturalist, but not by discarding the supernatural as a separate domain to the empirical natural world, but by attempting to fuse the two. He definitely believed in a god, and inherent purpose in nature, though I don't recall him saying much about spirits. — Wosret

I think he was right.

Plato on the other hand, Socrates definitely thought that he was on a divine mission, that he heard the voice of a spirit, his daemon, and believed in gods, and an immortal soul. — Wosret

I think Socrates was also right.

More conspiracies... there are sociological studies that show that conservatives are just more afraid of things than liberals, and tend to perceive things as more threatening. Scoring much lower on "openness to new experiences". Stop being so paranoid, and thinking everything conspiracies. — Wosret

Well maybe they just don't want to experience that particular new thing, why should that be considered bad? I don't want to experience getting raped. Does that mean that I'm afraid of it? Or that I'm not open to new experiences? No, it simply means that I consider that activity bad, and I don't want to engage in it. If some stupid social scientist gives me a survey asking me if I am conservative or liberal and then asks me if I want to participate in having sex with a random stranger, of course I will refuse. But that's not because I'm afraid of new experiences, it's simply because I think that action is wrong. And yes, I, like Socrates, am more afraid of doing something unjust than of death.

No, elemental, and humorous imbalances is ripe nonsense, something someone comes up with when they have no fucking clue. — Wosret

Right. I wonder why peasants came up with ghosts instead... :S

Could you actually present an excellence that produces any kind of effectiveness, or dividends? — Wosret

That's one my purposes in life, to illustrate through practical example, that while it seems that the irresponsible man full of vice triumphs in this world, actually that is an illusion, and in the end it is the rightful man who comes out on top. So yes, I'd say it does. I've generally been successful at what I've done, some say even highly so. But again, I think the main reward is that I feel good about myself, I feel happy about helping others, and I am not afraid of death, because I know I am doing my best to live a good life. I don't feel superior, I feel very very fortunate to have had the chance to learn and be a light unto myself and unto others.

How could you demonstrate it distinct from a delusional conceit? — Wosret

A tree is known by its fruits, hence why I seek to show it through my life :)

Those people all look fairly attractive, so I would say that they are probably fairly happy, and emotionally well adjusted. — Wosret

LOL. Okay. If that is what happiness is for you, then I have nothing more to say... If this is the human potential and the good life for you :( And if this is the end product of modernity - let me say that this is just laughable. A Julius Caesar, a Plato, an Aristotle, etc. would be rolling in their graves if they knew.

His primary concern is actually overcoming the worthlessness of humanity. The praise of original sin here is no coincidence. Agustino is looking at the lack of joy (or at least a perceived) lack of joy in people's lives and is then throwing out a whole lot of behaviours which are supposedly causing the lack of joy. He is so investing in saying who is wrong and what is wrong because he views joy a question of overcoming one's worthlessness.

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving. That's why he so invested in saying, commanding and being seen to be tough immorality. He is lamenting the lack of demands put on people in Western culture. Aside for whether any individual is happy of not, his problem is we think we are worth too much. We've eliminated the joy of being "saved" from our own worthlessness, at least amongst the "liberal elite" and anyone who shares similar cultural values. We've replaced the what Agustino calls the "spiritual" with ourselves.

He is so investing in saying who is wrong and what is wrong because he views joy a question of overcoming one's worthlessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think people are inherently worthless, they just make themselves worthless by forgetting who they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-vnLHaTe3g . Simba's relationship with his father is much like man's relationship with the divine.

In fact, my use of original sin shows that I don't think people are inherently worthless. Just like the gas laws, original sin refers to the statistical, probabilistic, and NOT inherent behaviors of people.

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The individual makes himself worthless, and puts himself in a position where he needs to be saved.

He is lamenting the lack of demands put on people in Western culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, the West has forgotten duty, and because it has forgotten duty it will either remember it, or it shall disappear, as all other civilisations have disappeared. That the West thinks of itself as immortal is a grave delusion. The barbarians are at the gates. Hannibal ante portas...

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving — TheWillowOfDarkness

My moral decay is the loss of a culture which can detect and correct worthlessness.

Aside for whether any individual is happy of not, his problem is we think we are worth too much — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes and no. We have become too selfish, that much is true. In that sense, yes my problem is that we think we are worth too much when in truth we are not. And no, in the sense that if we thought we are great, and we were indeed great, there would be no problem with thinking ourselves to be great.

We've replaced the what Agustino calls the "spiritual" with ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, we've replaced the spirit with ourselves, and so we have sought to make man into a God, into a standard for judgement. That is why we have become so selfish and perverted. Anamnesis as Plato said. Forgetfulness.

However, you have to realise that we have the writings of historians who witnessed those events, and they describe what happened. The fact that they noticed moral decay in their society is a fact. It's unquestionable. It's not something that can be interpreted. Something that is up to interpretation for example, is why did moral decay occur? Some say because of relaxed religious control, others because of too much well being, others because of orientation towards money rather than virtue, etc. — Agustino

"Moral decay" is a useless measure for exactly that reason. It doesn't actually name anything that's happening in society. It's post-hoc blaming of the nearest thing (the promiscuous, the gays, the Jews, etc., etc., etc.), in the vein hope there is something that can avoid the collapse which is already in motion.


Societies collapse because of the distribution of resources and how they are used. We know this outright. We've seen it in the historical record. We've actually seen it in modern Western communities. This isn't a mystery. What people notice is various things happening in society as it goes down in flames. Most of the time, these have just about nothing to do with the collapse, with the case of the collapse set in motion many years before or beyond the immediate control of the society (e.g. the presence of invading armies, economic depression precipitating internal conflict, long standing ethnic tensions, etc.,etc. )

"Moral decay" is a useless measure for exactly that reason. It doesn't actually name anything that's happening in society. It's post-hoc blaming of the nearest thing (the promiscuous, the gays, the Jews, etc., etc., etc.), in the vein hope there is something that can avoid the collapse which is already in motion. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it does name a change in people's behavior. It may not name the cause of the change, but it names and identifies a behavior which is bad, not the cause of that behavior.

in the vein hope there is something that can avoid the collapse which is already in motion. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The only thing that can avoid the collapse is mobilising a sufficiently large group of people, and creating communities of righteousness within the larger society, which slowly take over it.

Societies collapse because of the distribution of resources and how they are used. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I would say they collapse because people's lives become too easy, and people become unmotivated, they no longer understand what greatness is, or what matters in life, and a prevailing nihilism befalls upon the world.

Most of the time, these have just about nothing to do with the collapse, with the case of the collapse set in motion many years before or beyond the immediate control of the society (e.g. the presence of invading armies, economic depression precipitating internal conflict, long standing ethnic tensions, etc.,etc. ) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Have a look at the article I posted, it explains the rise and fall of empires quite well.

I don't think people are inherently worthless, they just make themselves worthless by forgetting who they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-vnLHaTe3g . Simba's relationship with his father is much like man's relationship with the divine. — Agustino

Utter falsehood. You do think them worthless. Without the divine, humanity is scum. That's your position. The notion you've been struggling with ever since I've known you, right back to your first posting about God on the PF. You've never been able to view humans as worth anything in themselves. You're always demanding the must aim higher to save themselves from their inherent debasement. You are still chasing that which is never us, just like the consumerist who is never content the thing they just bought. The divine only manages to avoid lack of fulfilment in this role because it is imaginary. Since it can't be attained, the hollowness of reaching a desired state can't be achieved. One never gets to the divine, to become worthwhile, such that their sense of worthlessness renders the divine sour.

Yes and no. We have become too selfish, that much is true. In that sense, yes my problem is that we think we are worth too much when in truth we are not. And no, in the sense that if we thought we are great, and we were indeed great, there would be no problem with thinking ourselves to be great. — "Agustino

I wasn't talking about selfishness there, but rather one's own understanding of their worth. The point is about whether one has joy without the divine. When one understands themselves to be a legitimate part of the world, on their own terms, rather than a monster who needs the divine to make their lies worthwhile. My point is you lack this insight. You continue to outsource the worth of live because you think they have none on there own.

Yes, the West has forgotten duty, and because it has forgotten duty it will either remember it, or it shall disappear, as all other civilisations have disappeared. That the West thinks of itself as immortal is a grave delusion. The barbarians are at the gates. Hannibal ante portas... — Agustino

The duty to what exactly? (Further) subjugate the rest of the world under its military might? To (again) wipe out cultures and communities, (continuing) exploit other places such that we maintain overwhelming economic and military superiority?

You are delusional here. Make no mistake, the West will end sometime. Empires are built on the subjugation of others. Sometimes the fall because, at some point or another, they weren't destructive enough to those around them to hold themselves as a sole power. In some ways it is the life cycle of empire. The West won't end in the near future (still too much economic and military power for that), but it will pass on at some point, as is the case with all empires. Eventually, some force will develop with is strong enough to effectively oppose the West and it will crumble (as the British Empire, as the Ottoman Empire did, as Rome did ). And it won't be because they did not remember a duty to avoid casual sex. It will be because successive generations abandoned empire building for other interests (in some cases the interests of others).

Yes, we've replaced the spirit with ourselves, and so we have sought to make man into a God, into a standard for judgement. That is why we have become so selfish and perverted. —

Yet, we are not. Selfishness and pervasion heave been present in abounds in God fearing societies for centuries. Including you much vaunted examples of Rome and the Ottoman Empire. No, we replaced the locus of worth with ourselves. We've kicked the divine out. We feel we do not need it for our lives to be worthwhile, not in the sense of abandoning rules of individual actions (e.g. sexual morality), but in the sense of whether our lives our joyful and worthwhile. No saviour required, for we we matter in ourselves. And this is what you find most objectionable about Western culture, that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves.

Utter falsehood. You do think them worthless. Without the divine, humanity is scum. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, because the divine is more human than human themselves are. As St. Augustine states, God is closer to me than I am to myself.

The point is about whether one has joy without the divine. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That, by definition, is impossible. You seem to be under the impression that the divine is something other than human, whereas I'm saying that the divine is humanity's real nature.

The duty to what exactly? (Further) subjugate the rest of the world under its military might? To (again) wipe out cultures and communities, (continuing) exploit other places such that we maintain overwhelming economic and military superiority? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Duty towards themselves and their fellow human beings.

You are delusional here. Make no mistake, the West will end sometime. Empires are built on the subjugation of others. Sometimes the fall because, at some point or another, they weren't destructive enough to those around them to hold themselves as a powerful interest. In some ways it is the life cycle of empire. The West won't end in the near future (still too much economic and military power for that), but it will pass on at some point, as is the case with all empires. Eventually, some force will develop with is strong enough to effectively oppose the West and it will crumble (as the British Empire, as the Ottoman Empire did, as Rome did ). And it won't be because they did not remember a duty to avoid casual sex. It will be because successive generations abandoned empire building for other interests (in some cases the interests of others). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The West has less than 100 years to live, the way things are going at the moment. Mark my words. You don't realise the dangers of immorality to social cohesion and capacity to lead a good life in society.

No saviour required, for we we matter in ourselves. And this is what you find most objectionable about Western culture, that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I actually find (1) selfishness, (2) the enthralment of money, and (3) lack of sexual mores to be the most serious problems of the West. For me, your statement that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves - I could really care less about that (because the way you've phrased it, it's incoherent to begin with - as I said, joy without God makes no sense by definition). Someone who loves and respects themselves and their neighbours, and follows virtue, is a believer in God as far as I'm concerned. You seem to think that belief in God is something different than this.

Yes it does name a change in people's behavior. It may not name the cause of the change, but it names and identifies a behavior which is bad, not the cause of that behavior. — Agustino

That's nonsense. The question at hand wasn't whether people were behaving badly, but rather whether that behaviour was responsible for social collapse. Merely naming the change is exactly the problem. It isn't actually tied into the question of what is causing the collapse of society.

The only thing that can avoid the collapse is mobilising a sufficiently large group of people, and creating communities of righteousness within the larger society, which slowly take over it. — Agustino

Indeed... but to what? And this is the great illusion of the scapegoating of "moral decay." In many cases the "moral" decay has nothing to so with the social change that avoids collapse or rebuilds a society. Much collapse and rebuild occurs on cycle depending on the resources and economics of the time. Beating-up the "Moral" decay frequently has nothing to do the the rebuild. It just people violently venting anger that they were unlucky enough to be stuck with a terrible time.

Much collapse and rebuild occurs on cycle depending on the resources and economics of the time. Beating-up the "Moral" decay frequently has nothing to do the the rebuild. It just people violently venting anger that they were unlucky enough to be stuck with a terrible time. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Allow me to post this summary at the end of the article I posted before:

Summary
As numerous points of interest have arisen
in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
(a) We do not learn from history because
our studies are brief and prejudiced.
(b) In a surprising manner, 250 years
emerges as the average length of national
greatness.
(c) This average has not varied for 3,000
years. Does it represent ten generations?
(d) The stages of the rise and fall of great
nations seem to be:
The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
The Age of Conquests
The Age of Commerce
The Age of Affluence
The Age of Intellect
The Age of Decadence.
(e) Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.
(f) Decadence is due to:
Too long a period of wealth and power
Selfishness
Love of money
The loss of a sense of duty.
(g) The life histories of great states are
amazingly similar, and are due to internal
factors.
(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are
largely the result of external causes.
(i) History should be taught as the history
of the human race, though of course with
emphasis on the history of the student’s own
country.

It's not only resources Willow. It's that people no longer want to work - they are no longer motivated. People in the West no longer want to sweep streets. They want the fucking immigrant to do it for them. They no longer want to clean toilets. All of them want to work in large corporations, sit with their bums on a chair in front of computers clicking a few buttons, finish work early and recieve a good paycheck, with free weekends and easy access to alcohol and sex. This decadence in values, starting with a switch from a community centered life, to an individualistic, selfish centered life, followed by greed and lust for money, and ultimately followed by moral and sexual collapse which leads to indifference to the good of the community and of other people is what makes our resources become dwindled due to horrendous management. We don't have resources anymore not because our neighbors have become too powerful - but rather because we have become too WEAK. Our people are not interested anymore in preserving and increasing our resources. Everyone cares just about themselves. No sense of community exists.

No I actually find (1) selfishness, (2) the enthralment of money, and (3) lack of sexual mores to be the most serious problems of the West. For me, your statement that joy has been turned over from God to ourselves - I could really care less about that. Someone who loves and respects themselves and their neighbours, and follows virtue, is a believer in God as far as I'm concerned. You seem to think that belief in God is something different than this. — Agustino

Laughable. (1), (2) are not new. Empires have always been about those. (2) has been made available to many people in the West because of their economic power and production (now its not just the King's treasury which worried about how to spend lots of money, for lots of people gain significant funds and have to distribute it). (3) has always had a presence too, present Western culture just doesn't make an example of them.

The turning of joy over to humans is what you care about most. It the focus on the individual and their worth which hurts you the most (which you incorrectly perceive as "selfishness" ), for it means the loss of community based categories as sole providers of joy. Now one doesn't need to be a part of a church, a monogamous relationship, a nation, etc.,etc., etc. to feel joy. They can have that all on their own.

And this is why you completely ignore the question of of whether people love, respect themselves and their neighbours. Notice you do not actually examine the beaver of various individuals in their communities, what they do for each other, the community projects they run, the way they play a part in their local communities. Instead, you talk about what (supposedly) governs people (money, rampant desire for casual sex), which are really only and image presented as ideal. You ignore people themselves. Thus, you come away with this impression that Westerners are somehow all money obsessed, sleeping with everyone and without communities ties at all.

Belief in God is something different to what you claim. Here it (though it is not always this) is the idea human are worthless and the need to band together under the "divine" to matter or have community ties. A position so caught-up in the joy of being "saved" that it ignores that many people don't need saving and their social ties and virtues.

(1), (2) are not new — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes history repeats itself, indeed.

(3) has always had a presence too, present Western culture just doesn't make an example of them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A much more diminished presence, except in periods of social unrest and instability.

The turning of joy over to humans is what you care about most. It the focus on the individual and their worth which hurts you the most (which you incorrectly perceive as "selfishness" ), for it means the loss of community based categories as sole providers of joy. Now one doesn't need to be a part of a church, a monogamous relationship, a nation, etc.,etc., etc. to feel joy. They can have that all on their own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, with Aristotle, I think man is a social animal and cannot ultimately be happy on his own - but requires his community for that (even Spinoza said it - the best thing for man, is man!). I also think that it is immoral for someone to pursue only his own happiness and disregard the happiness of others. I think it's immoral, for example, to trick your collegue at work so that you get a promotion instead of him. I think it's immoral to disconsider the interests of your beloved ones when deciding what to do with your future. Etc. etc.

And this is why you completely ignore the question of of whether people love, respect themselves and their neighbours. Notice you do not actually examine the beaver of various individuals in their communities, what they do for each other, the community projects they run, the way they play a part in their local communities. Instead, you talk about what (supposedly) governs people (money, rampant desire for casual sex), which are really only and image presented as ideal. You ignore people themselves. Thus, you come away with this impression that Westerners are somehow all money obsessed, sleeping with everyone and without communities ties at all. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Just go and have a look and see if people are loving to each other. What I see is that men abuse women they claim to love and treat them as exchangeable socks, what I see is mothers neglecting their children in order to advance their careers, what I see is young people wasting their time in nightclubs doing effectively nothing productive but wasting resources, etc. etc. Is this loving and respecting themselves and their neighbors??

Belief in God is something different to what you claim. Here it (though it is not always this) is the idea human are worthless and the need to band together under the "divine" to matter or have community ties. A position so caught-up in the joy of being "saved" that it ignores that many people don't need saving and their social ties and virtues. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree with this, it's simply not a correct description of my position.

That's economically driven situation. Our economies have changed such that those sort jobs are not available or being replaced by technology. The blame that "Ah, those people just don't want to do the work" is mindless scapegoating which ignores the underlying problem. I mean it doesn't even make sense to say immigrants cleaning toilets is causing the collapse of society. The service is still getting done. Even if it were the case that it was merely a matter of local people refusing to do it (rather than, you know, companies preferring immigrants for economic considerations, where people are living, the need for a living wage, etc.,etc. ), these mindless accusations of "moral decay" doesn't address the problem. That doesn't specify we need to a community which offers those jobs (or some other economic structure to deal with the loss of hose jobs) to local people and individuals who are comfortable doing that.

That's economically driven situation — TheWillowOfDarkness

Economics itself is driven by the motivation of a peoples. A highly motivated group of people will be interested to work, grow and develop. A highly unmotivated group of people on the other hand, will not really care about working and developing. They will work only as much as required for survival. They will spend the remaining time in useless pursuits.

A much more diminished presence, except in periods of social unrest and instability. — Agustino

More like a significant underclass of people that weren't talked about in polite society.

Yes, with Aristotle, I think man is a social animal and cannot ultimately be happy on his own - but requires his community for that. I also think that it is immoral for someone to pursue only his own happiness and disregard the happiness of others. I think it's immoral, for example, to trick your collegue at work so that you get a promotion instead of him. I think it's immoral to disconsider the interests of your beloved ones when deciding what to do with your future. Etc. etc. — Agustino

Indeed... but you aren't offering that. You are talking about community in terms of fiction, of the God they all follow, of the country they all serve, not their ties to each other and what they build as a community. It's all bluster with you. Statements which soothe fear, which say they have belonging, without examining how people live or if they have substantial ties to others.

Just go and have a look and see if people are loving to each other. What I see is that men abuse women they claim to love and treat them as exchangeable socks, what I see is mothers neglecting their children in order to advance their careers, etc. — Agustino

I do. I see everyday. I even see it amongst some "promiscuous" people people who are giving similarity interested people an expression of their interests. This is what I mean about ignoring people. You don't examine their interests or what they are doing. Someone one focusing on a career, for example, maybe about helping other people.

More like a significant underclass of people that weren't talked about in polite society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is quite ahistorical. It was not "significant".

Indeed... but you aren't offering that. You are talking about community in terms of fiction, of the God they all follow, of the country they all serve, not their ties to each other and what they build as a community. It's all bluster with you. Statements which soothe fear, which say they have belonging, without examining how people live or if they have substantial ties to others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't understand why you claim this is my position. It isn't.

I do. I see everyday. I even see it amongst some "promiscuous" people people who are giving similarity interested people an expression of their interests. This is what I mean about ignoring people. You don't examine their interests or what they are doing. Someone one focusing on a career, for example, maybe about helping other people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Sorry, but the English of your sentence isn't very clear here and I can't understand what exactly you're trying to say. What do you mean by "see it amongst some 'promiscuous' people people who are giving similarly interested people an expression of their interests"?

Not if there is no work available or that work can't pay regular bills. Being motivated to clean toilets all day is useless, at least in terms of your own wealth, if no-one will pay you for it. No doubt the motivation to build a better a community be making sure their toilets are clean is a great one, but it gets thrown under "useless pursuits" in this context. As does anything which doesn't pay the bills.

Not if there is no work available or that work can't pay regular bills. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A characteristic of young nations, companies and empires is that their people are enterprising. They are keen on finding solutions, and are willingly to try anything. They are also loyal to the group, and self-sacrifice for the good of others when needed. This pursuit of work just to get paid is something that comes only later on.

This is quite ahistorical. It was not "significant". — Agustino

It was, though no-one liked to talk about it. "Ahistorical" in the sense that we are actually interested in considering them people and talking about their relationship to the rest of society, perhaps.

The difference between them and modern Western society, in term of actual behaviour, isn't all that different. Major shifts in Western culture have occurred in terms of sexual behaviour before long term relationships and in the ending of long term relationships, but most people are not promiscuous otherwise. It just doesn't interest them.

I don't understand why you claim this is my position. It isn't. — Agustino

I claim this because it is your position. You are more interested in whether people are said to be in a community, whether they a pronounced to have ties or joy with others, than if they actually do or not.

Sorry, but the English of your sentence isn't very clear here and I can't understand what exactly you're trying to say. What do you mean by "see it amongst some 'promiscuous' people people who are giving similarly interested people an expression of their interests"? — Agustino

I mean that I see some promiscuous people thinking of others in their sexual practices. It is a limited subset, but not every promiscuous person views sex as question of getting an object. For some people it is about what other people want too. The point is, even amongst those who you would single out as lacking community, there are people with communal ties. You are making the mistake only looking at what is said to be a part of community, rather than examining what people actually do.

And that provides for their lives, which makes all the difference.

In an established society and growing, were there is an excess of economic roles, the equation reverses. There aren't the places in the workforce for everyone and so it's not a problem which can be solved through motivation to do pad work. Interests shift outside doing work which obtains money because it isn't there and often plays a big part in serving the community (for all that work that needs doing which no-one is interested in paying for).

. We don't have resources anymore not because our neighbors have become too powerful - but rather because we have become too WEAK. Our people are not interested anymore in preserving and increasing our resources. Everyone cares just about themselves. No sense of community exists.

You are missing the point. When the interest in empire building wanes, the actions which would horde resources for oneself, and so prevent other powers from rising, ceases. After conquest and commerce, the battle is essential lost.

The seed for the fall of an empire is sown when it shifts from external interests to internal ones, for it is at that point expansion and its need for an endless supply of people for expansion ceases.

"Becoming weak" amounts to ceasing to be a warmonger and actually caring for the well-being of one's citizens here.

It not actually a question of selfishness (people still care for each other plenty in falling empires), but rather having no interest in empire building anymore. What you care about here is not community, but building empires.

His primary concern is actually overcoming the worthlessness of humanity. The praise of original sin here is no coincidence. Agustino is looking at the lack of joy (or at least a perceived) lack of joy in people's lives and is then throwing out a whole lot of behaviours which are supposedly causing the lack of joy. He is so investing in saying who is wrong and what is wrong because he views joy a question of overcoming one's worthlessness.

His much vaunted "moral decay" is really the loss of a culture which views the individual as essentially worthlessness and in need of saving. That's why he so invested in saying, commanding and being seen to be tough immorality. He is lamenting the lack of demands put on people in Western culture. Aside for whether any individual is happy of not, his problem is we think we are worth too much. We've eliminated the joy of being "saved" from our own worthlessness, at least amongst the "liberal elite" and anyone who shares similar cultural values. We've replaced the what Agustino calls the "spiritual" with ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree with this, it's simply not a correct description of my position. — Agustino

... original sin refers to the statistical, probabilistic, and NOT inherent behaviors of people. — Agustino

Agustino, I can't say with certainty that The Willow... has precisely described your overt beliefs in the quoted statement, but I think he has put his finger on some inchoate beliefs that are common to people who share your world view. Much of what you say makes more sense when viewed in the context of his appraisal.

You might not like this appraisal, but I don't consider it negative. You are as entitled to our understanding of what you believe, (without any obligation to agree with it) as we are to your understanding (without any obligation to agree with it). Both of our belief sets are derived from cultural lodes which we separately mine for gold.

BTW, I disagree with your characterization of original sin. Original sin has nothing to do with the statistical likelihood of sin, or probabilistic depravity. Rather, original sin is about the dead certainty of our fallen state and the necessity of our moral failure (in the context of Christian doctrine).

It seems to me that the founders of Christianity wanted to contrast our totally fallen state to the absolute salvation which Christ offered. Sometimes it seems like the church fathers unnecessarily cursed mankind for the sake of high contrast, and at other times it seems like they hit the nail on the had. Sometimes our species seems hell bent for leather to be as bad as we can possibly be--usually acting collectively, such as during the Holocaust.

On this point (about to be stated) we are going to part company: I consider original sin a doctrinal stumbling block because it frequently leads Christians to focus on their favorite depravity -- in your case, it's promiscuous sexual activity; in my case, it's promiscuous economic activity. You see sin in sex, I see sin in economic activity. Your favorite sinner is a promiscuous faggot, my favorite sinner is an upright capitalist.

Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness
Pessimism
Materialism
Frivolity
An influx of foreigners
The Welfare State
A weakening of religion.

Defensiveness, Pessimism, Materialism, and Frivolity seem more like features of individuals than societies, and in any case, don't seem to have any obvious connection to societal or national decadence.

Maybe an influx of foreigners -- but it would depend how they arrive. If the foreigners are mostly an army arriving in tanks, bombers, and troop carriers -- that could be very bad. On the other hand, an influx of foreigners might be invigorating. I would prefer a more controlled southern border, but there is no doubt that all the folks arriving from south of the border have invigorated a lot of commercial dead spots in towns where they have settled.

Welfare State? Fiddlesticks. That's just your pet axe getting ground.

Weakening of religion? Maybe, in as much as a religion is part of a cohesive culture. If it isn't part of a cohesive culture, then its decline won't matter.

Decadence is due to 'Too long a period of wealth and power'

What is "too long'? Rome was an intact, functioning, vital concern for a long time. Was that 'too long'? It's just not a actionable valuation.

Selfishness, Love of money, and The loss of a sense of duty

Again, that seems more individual than collective, and traits such as 'selfishness' and 'love of money' are present in all societies from the get go.

(h) Their falls are diverse, because they are largely the result of external causes.

If societies fall from external causes, than what difference does the decadence of the citizens make to the outcome?

(i) History should be taught as the history of the human race, though of course with emphasis on the history of the student’s own country.

Well, I suppose so! What else would one teach in history other than the history of the human race?

If I were going to describe "decadence" in a society, my list would look like this:

• a long term decline in essential economic activity (agriculture, production of necessities, and basic goods)
• a long term decline in the quality of governance involving
  - failure of the government to raise sufficient funds to operate
  - failure of the government to effectively protect the country internally
  - failure of the government to respond to acute problems (floods, famine, epidemics, etc.)
  - failure of the government to maintain an adequate defense for normal (not overwhelming) external threats
• a decline in the quality of social and cultural reproduction (population decline, inadequate education, decreasing longevity, deterioration of the preservation and renewal of cultural resources (literature, drama, music, etc.)
• a falling birthrate and a falling child survival rate
• a decline in mutual community support activities (a breakdown in the 'ties that bind' people together: festivals, religions, mutual aid, social interaction, accepted responsibilities, and so forth
• increasing anomie, alienation, isolation, fear of one another, criminal activity by people previously unlikely to engage in criminal activity, etc.
  
  In other words, a decadent society is one which is rapidly failing to operate effectively for its own good.
  
  What about morality?
  
  Morality is a critical element in the mutuality of community bonds. A well-functioning society performs mutual service as a matter of course. Mutual service is considered a fundamental good, an obligation: make sure old folks are not neglected; that the young are not allowed to publicly flout community standards (talking about 6 year olds, here, not 26 year olds); make sure the sick get cared for; mutual respect for families; material contributions to the common good (support the school, the church, the fire department, the play ground, the annual fund drive for social services, the parks, community gardens, etc.).
  
  A well-functioning society has clear standards of behavior AND can tolerate a certain amount of deviation. Every community has members who do not conform to some accepted standard but don't count as a threat. There might be the one Christian Scientist in a town of Roman Catholics. That's tolerable. There might be people who drink too much in a town of abstainers. That's lamentable, but tolerable -- up to a point. There are going to be bachelors and spinsters in a town of married people. "That's sad" but tolerable. There may be a socialist in a town of republicans. It will be uncomfortable for the socialist, but he's tolerable. Same for militant feminists, vegans, cat loving dog haters, and so on. They won't win popularity contests but they won't be lynched (well, usually not).
  
  Many ordinary, even conservative, communities actually show a surprising level of tolerance for social deviation. I'm not convinced that diversity itself makes a society that much better, but tolerance of diversity is certainly a sign of robust confidence.
  
  IN OTHER WORDS, SOCIETIES FALL APART FROM WITHIN. Of course, one can destroy a society from without -- literally bomb it to smithereens. We know how to do that. A few H bombs here and there and a small country won't grow back. More H bombs and bigger countries will go away for good. Use enough H bombs and we will all go together when we go, every Hottentot and every Eskimo. There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie, we will all fry together when we fry. Sing out a Te Deum when you see that ICBM and the party will be 'come as you are'.

Major shifts in Western culture have occurred in terms of sexual behaviour before long term relationships and in the ending of long term relationships, but most people are not promiscuous otherwise. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Which simply is the problem, because instead of seeking and/or preparing themselves for long term relationships (which even according to your account is the end goal), they engage in activities which do nothing to facilitate the achievement of the end goal, but to actually profoundly harm it, and move them farther from its achievement. The end goal is a long-term dignified relationship, in which both partners are loyal and care for each other, in which they grow together and live together in mutual company and love.

I claim this because it is your position. You are more interested in whether people are said to be in a community, whether they a pronounced to have ties or joy with others, than if they actually do or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, this isn't my position. I am interested in facilitating a reasonable and fulfilled life for people, NOT in it being said about them that they live reasonable and fulfilled lives.

I mean that I see some promiscuous people thinking of others in their sexual practices. It is a limited subset, but not every promiscuous person views sex as question of getting an object. For some people it is about what other people want too. The point is, even amongst those who you would single out as lacking community, there are people with communal ties. You are making the mistake only looking at what is said to be a part of community, rather than examining what people actually do. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am not even talking about this. What I'm talking about is that promiscuity should never be allowed to become the NORM of society. I am saying that promiscuity becoming the norm destroys social cohesion and ties. The majority of people should not behave promiscuously. Our problem in the West is that promiscuity has become the norm. That it should exist as a small subset, sure - that's how it has existed for most times historically.

In an established society and growing, were there is an excess of economic roles, the equation reverses. There aren't the places in the workforce for everyone and so it's not a problem which can be solved through motivation to do pad work. Interests shift outside doing work which obtains money because it isn't there and often plays a big part in serving the community (for all that work that needs doing which no-one is interested in paying for). — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is never an excess of useful work for a community. We have so many sick people, so many elderly, etc etc. who need to be cared for. I don't see that we live in a day and age of too little work available.

"Becoming weak" amounts to ceasing to be a warmonger and actually caring for the well-being of one's citizens here. — TheWillowOfDarkness

YES! But in a different way from the way you put it. Decadence comes first, and it is rationalised AS morality after (which by the way is EXACTLY the rationalisation you are displaying in your post by labeling empire building as warmongering and other negative adjectives). We say we're no longer like the Romans - we don't need to train our young men to fight now, we're morally superior - we don't believe in fighting. But the truth is that first we became complacent in our wealth, and only then did we stop being interested to train our young in fighting. After this fact, we started rationalising why we're no longer training them to fight - why we no longer follow traditions - because we're moral - we've become morally superior. This drama has played multiple times in history.

It not actually a question of selfishness (people still care for each other plenty in falling empires), but rather having no interest in empire building anymore. What you care about here is not community, but building empires. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes it is a question of selfishness. In the early stages, people sacrifice themselves for the well-being and prosperity of the community. They seek to grow and expand their community - they work for their community more than they work for themselves. In the later, decadent stages, they have forgotten the duty they have towards the community, and remember only the duty they have towards themselves. Empire building is the pinnacle of civilisation.

Agustino, I can't say with certainty that The Willow... has precisely described your overt beliefs in the quoted statement, but I think he has put his finger on some inchoate beliefs that are common to people who share your world view. Much of what you say makes more sense when viewed in the context of his appraisal.

You might not like this appraisal, but I don't consider it negative. You are as entitled to our understanding of what you believe, (without any obligation to agree with it) as we are to your understanding (without any obligation to agree with it). Both of our belief sets are derived from cultural lodes which we separately mine for gold. — Bitter Crank

I have no problem with any of this, nor do I think TheWillow's comments to be negative, even if they were true. My point is that I simply don't think he has portrayed my position accurately, but he has shown merely how he understands me - the parts of me that he perceives and sees. I'm just trying to say that there is more there, which because he has tried to categorise within such bounds, he fails to see, and must necessarily ignore in order to maintain his image of me. Willow is at this point not arguing with me - he is arguing with the image he has of me, which I see as the problem.

BTW, I disagree with your characterization of original sin. Original sin has nothing to do with the statistical likelihood of sin, or probabilistic depravity. Rather, original sin is about the dead certainty of our fallen state and the necessity of our moral failure (in the context of Christian doctrine). — Bitter Crank

Not really... what versions of Christianity have you learned this from? It must be some form of Protestant or Calvinist versions. The Christian position, at least in Catholic AND Orthodox Christianity (I was born Orthodox Christian), is that man is naturally, inherently good - because he is made in the image of God. Original sin reflects the fallenness of this world. This means the natural tendency this world has towards evil - it means that in the long run, statistically, there is a higher probability of doing evil than doing good, a higher probability of sin than rightousness. Let's say 50.1% probability of sin. In the long term, as time approaches infinity, the probability of having sinned approaches certainty. BUT man is not necessarily going to fail morally - it's never certain that he will fail. This is simply more likely. There can be individual exceptions. On the individual level, we can have rightful people (for example Socrates). Historically we can have societies which are, during short periods of time, highly moral and hence exceptions. What original sin talks about however, is that, sooner or later, even those righteous societies will become unrighteous. That is why, contra Marx, no change in social structure can EVER produce the perfect society which will last forever. All social structures are inherently unstable - that is the effect of original sin. In physics, it translates as the arrow of time, which inevitably leads to death. That is why the punishment of sin is death. The punishment of this world is death - its arrow of time, its entropic tendency, its second law of thermodynamics, which will ultimately destroy it.

Theologically, this world is fallen because the ontological status of good and evil are inverted. In this world, death triumphs, and life perishes. However, logically, sub specie aeternitatus, life is what makes death possible, and thus life is prior and above death, for it subsumes and consumes death within it. Thus, in comparison to this eternal perspective, we say that this world is fallen.

It seems to me that the founders of Christianity wanted to contrast our totally fallen state to the absolute salvation which Christ offered. Sometimes it seems like the church fathers unnecessarily cursed mankind for the sake of high contrast, and at other times it seems like they hit the nail on the had. Sometimes our species seems hell bent for leather to be as bad as we can possibly be--usually acting collectively, such as during the Holocaust. — Bitter Crank

I think rather that the Church fathers wanted to awaken us to our true potential of being the sons and daughters of God. If, with Plato, we remembered who we are - namely that we are the sons and daughters of the supreme power, in whom we move and have our being, we would not act immorally. We only act immorally because a veil has fallen over our eyes, and we have forgotten who we are. All vice has its root in ignorance, after Socrates + Plato. And salvation is in what Plato and Socrates said: know thyself. We sell ourselves for too little - we are kings and queens, the price should be set very very high. But we give ourselves for nothing. That is the real shame of it all, the real worthlessness as Willow calls it. We're not inherently worthless - we're actually worth so much! But we don't know about it!

They wanted us to drop our wealth and possessions, drop our greed and lust, and pick up the Cross (kill our egos), and follow Christ (community). They wanted us to live lovingly with each other, not being interested in money, life, health or anything else more than we are interested in the well-being of our souls (psyches) - in virtue. The Church fathers wanted to show that unless we remember who we are, we necessarily make ourselves worthless - we sell ourselves for nothing! If I showed you proof today BC, that you are the son of a great king, would you not start carrying yourself differently? Would you not act differently, think differently, and BE differently? That was the power of the Gospel in the early years of Christianity. That's why people were willing to die for it.

And it's not that different from the truth shared by other religions, although they use different devices and metaphors for it. Buddhism says ultimate reality is emptyness - sunyata. But the Buddhist sunyata is the dynamic active emptiness which underlies everything and gives being to everything else. Just like in Christianity, God is the ACTIVITY that supports everything else - the prime mover - that in which we all move and have our being and without which we are nothing. This means that our self is communally mediated, and without the community (others) our self IS nothing. That is also why "whosoever loves one of those little ones, loves Me".

On this point (about to be stated) we are going to part company: I consider original sin a doctrinal stumbling block because it frequently leads Christians to focus on their favorite depravity -- in your case, it's promiscuous sexual activity; in my case, it's promiscuous economic activity. — Bitter Crank

I think both are depravities, I merely think the former is more dangerous than the latter (at least at the moment). If I lived in the 1800s, I probably would have agreed with you.

Defensiveness, Pessimism, Materialism, and Frivolity seem more like features of individuals than societies, and in any case, don't seem to have any obvious connection to societal or national decadence. — Bitter Crank

Well they do - they are features which were noticed in a majority of the population in those times of social collapse. And yes, they describe attitudes of the individual. When they are applied to society, it describes the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of people in that society. So what this means is that pessimism, defensiveness, materialism and frivolity should never be allowed to become the views of the majority. They must always be contained within society, never allowed to grow like a cancer and destroy everything else. They cannot be eliminated, that's why containment is the strategy.

Maybe an influx of foreigners -- but it would depend how they arrive. If the foreigners are mostly an army arriving in tanks, bombers, and troop carriers -- that could be very bad. On the other hand, an influx of foreigners might be invigorating. I would prefer a more controlled southern border, but there is no doubt that all the folks arriving from south of the border have invigorated a lot of commercial dead spots in towns where they have settled. — Bitter Crank

Economically yes. But socially it's disastrous. They form their own communities within the larger society, and their loyalties lie with their own communities rather than with the larger society, thus they promote division, and they can never integrate and accept practices which are radically different from their own. That is why, conflict is always boiling underneath - who knows when it will erupt.

What is "too long'? Rome was an intact, functioning, vital concern for a long time. Was that 'too long'? It's just not a actionable valuation. — Bitter Crank

He speculates 250 years is too long. 10 generations of people. It's an important question, but I don't think the answer to it matters that much. What matters much more is that an answer can be given, it appears to me that you think no answer can in principle be given.

Again, that seems more individual than collective, and traits such as 'selfishness' and 'love of money' are present in all societies from the get go. — Bitter Crank

Yes, they are present in the beginning, but represent minority positions. When they become social norms, THAT is the problem. A social failure to contain evil instead of allow it to spread and infect all of society.

Well, I suppose so! What else would one teach in history other than the history of the human race? — Bitter Crank

If you read the article, you will see he contrasts this with the common historical teaching we find in many countries today, where children are taught history from the perspective of their own nation, thus embelishing their own nation's achievements, and diminishing its failures - labelling their opponents as tyrants, and themselves as emancipators, etc.

a long term decline in essential economic activity (agriculture, production of necessities, and basic goods)
a long term decline in the quality of governance involving
- failure of the government to raise sufficient funds to operate
- failure of the government to effectively protect the country internally
- failure of the government to respond to acute problems (floods, famine, epidemics, etc.)
- failure of the government to maintain an adequate defense for normal (not overwhelming) external threats
a decline in the quality of social and cultural reproduction (population decline, inadequate education, decreasing longevity, deterioration of the preservation and renewal of cultural resources (literature, drama, music, etc.)
a falling birthrate and a falling child survival rate
a decline in mutual community support activities (a breakdown in the 'ties that bind' people together: festivals, religions, mutual aid, social interaction, accepted responsibilities, and so forth
increasing anomie, alienation, isolation, fear of one another, criminal activity by people previously unlikely to engage in criminal activity, etc. — Bitter Crank

I agree with all elements from your list.

Morality is a critical element in the mutuality of community bonds. A well-functioning society performs mutual service as a matter of course. Mutual service is considered a fundamental good, an obligation: make sure old folks are not neglected; — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

that the young are not allowed to publicly flout community standards (talking about 6 year olds, here, not 26 year olds — Bitter Crank

Agreed with the non-bracketed part. 26 year olds are equally, if not more dangerous.

make sure the sick get cared for; mutual respect for families; material contributions to the common good (support the school, the church, the fire department, the play ground, the annual fund drive for social services, the parks, community gardens, etc.). — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

A well-functioning society has clear standards of behavior AND can tolerate a certain amount of deviation. Every community has members who do not conform to some accepted standard but don't count as a threat — Bitter Crank

I agree.

There are going to be bachelors and spinsters in a town of married people. "That's sad" but tolerable. — Bitter Crank

I would even say it's good, so long as its maintained to a low level and never becomes the norm.

IN OTHER WORDS, SOCIETIES FALL APART FROM WITHIN. — Bitter Crank

The article I posted actually agrees with this (despite the way he summarised his conclusions). He states, somewhere halfway I believe, that social collapse is FIRST started from within - lust for money, forgetfulness of duty, etc. and then fulfilled by external factors (such as barbarian invasions, etc.)