It is Greek and Roman philosophy that is important to understanding democracy. We know German philosophy lead to a military industrial complex and two world wars.

:up: (re: German Idealism!)

Good quote. I've always considered old Georg an obscurant, occulting, charlatan (must be my Schopenhauerian / Feuerbachian bias pace Žižek et al) even moreso than his great-grand bastard Heidi.

Could it be said, the Athenian interest in arte and individualism is the opposite of Hegal and "the state is God". Hegel and Sparta are a good match, and for sure, Sparta was not about individual liberty. Democracy in the US is about individual liberty, but without also being about arte and democracy we are advancing anarchy instead of democracy. The US has dropped the Greek philosophy in favor of German philosophy and Nietzsche's superman has become a problem along with Trumpism and favoring authoritarianism.

Attack the thoughts, not the person.

I've always considered old Georg an obscurant, occulting, charlatan (must be my Schopenhauerian / Feuerbachian bias pace Žižek et al) — 180 Proof

:rofl:

:100:

Your post is interesting and I have just looked at your links, as there does indeed appear to be so much knowledge to be tapped into. In recent weeks, I am thinking that the Platonic mystics are of extreme importance. I try to read as widely as possible, but I have downloaded some books on on Greek ideas, and I am trying to find the time to read them. Thanks for your contributions to the discussion, and with regard to certain ideas being dismissed as mythical on this site, I try not to think as freely as possible.

I am not really wishing to suggest that theists have a superior knowledge or more peaceful life. Really, I was writing of the godless abyss more as a metaphorical truth, probably based on my own experiences of thinking outside of the religious background from which I was socialised. Ultimately, I try to be open, and non judgemental of anyone's ideas, and I keep an ongoing open understanding of any new ideas which I encounter.

Could it be said, the Athenian interest in arte and individualism is the opposite of Hegal and "the state is God". Hegel and Sparta are a good match, and for sure, Sparta was not about individual liberty. Democracy in the US is about individual liberty, but without also being about arte and democracy we are advancing anarchy instead of democracy. The US has dropped the Greek philosophy in favor of German philosophy and Nietzsche's superman has become a problem along with Trumpism and favoring authoritarianism. — Athena

I think Hegel needs to be taken in the right historical context. His "statism" was a reaction to the French Revolution that promoted individualism which many saw as leading to anarchy and chaos. The Germans were different from the French, they preferred stability, law and order to the unbridled idealism and individualism of the French. Plus, they had no choice. In a world system of conflicting imperial interests, they needed an ordered, successful and strong economy and the state and military to promote and defend that.

Germany was a world leader in science, technology, education and the arts. It wasn't just the Americans who borrowed from the Germans. But I'm not sure "German philosophy" is the real problem in America. Don't forget that Marxism was another Darwinist "German philosophy" that believed in a new type of man to replace the old. I think the problem is that multinational corporations and financial groups have infiltrated and taken over the political system which now runs more and more according to their interests and less and less according to the interests of the people. People can see that after decades of "progress" not much has changed. Even Clinton and Obama with their "Change" and "Yes We Can" slogans left quite a lot unchanged. People are beginning to distrust politicians in general and turn to any populist figure for solutions. Unfortunately, that will never really work unless and until the root causes of it all are addressed.

Generally, I agree with your answer, because I am in favour of keeping an open forum. I am not absolutely sure about theism, because it does seem important for me still.

I grew up believing in God, and questioned the basis of my Catholic beliefs. I was extremely religious as a teenager, and really questioned it all after encounters with fundamentalists. Their extreme ideas seemed to point to the knots inherent in Christian thinking.

Now, amidst philosophy discussion, I am really unsure how the question of God. I am not sure that life is fully described by the most common philosophies of our time, especially materialistic determinism, and even neuroscience. I am not convinced that life is full of random events, which makes me wonder about God, but I just think that the understanding of God within theism may be a bit restrictive. So, I would not say that I describe myself as agnostic, because even that seems too much of a boxed in label. I am more in search of thinking beyond the categories, and wonder if the conception of God, which the theists described, needs updating.

Ultimately, I try to be open, and non judgemental of anyone's ideas, and I keep an ongoing open understanding of any new ideas which I encounter. — Jack Cummins

Sure. I was just trying to open up the subject a bit more.

I really did have a tutor who thought that life after death might consist in us living eternally as disencarnate entities. However, the whole topic of bodies in afterlife is one which makes me laugh because my mum has always considered spoken of concern about what kind of bodies people would have after the resurrection, whether they would be glamorous and, whether the elderly would be given back their youth. Also, when I went to an evangelical church, I can remember people talking about what meals they would have after the resurrection. But, really, I think if you read the Bible, especially Paul, he is speaking more about spiritual bodies, rather than earthly ones.

Thanks for the links to the websites. I had a look at them this afternoon and they are very interesting. I am just finding so much to read that my head will explode eventually, with broken pieces of mysteries falling everywhere. I am thinking that Hermetic ideas are something I wish to analyse, because they do seem to have played such a central role in many developments of systems of ideas.

Attack the thoughts, not the person. — Athena

I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, Athena. That was not my intention. What I should have said was that those ideas seem to me to depict a worse scenario than the one I see. But really my broader point was that theorized or disciplined philosophical study have no necessary connection to good citizenship. It might improve it, it might make it worse, that is an open question.

Well, to approach the issue Hegel is getting at from an entirely different angle, there is Bacon:

...neither is it possible to discover the more remote and deeper parts of any science, if you stand but upon the level of the same science, and ascend not to a higher science

That is, there is a real sense in which an encompassing view of reality, the kind we'd really like to have, at the same time needs to pull out to such a scope that it can become almost numinous, mystical.

Of course, there is always the risk of deluding yourself into thinking you're viewing things at a grand scope, when you're really just recycling superstitions.

If you're looking for a psychological take on alchemy that is a bit more accessible (still definitely not super accessible) there is Jung's Psychology and Alchemy.

Despite being a kind of a con, Aliestier Crowley's Magick Without Tears has a pretty good intro to the occult of the early 20th century, the fodder that fed Years and many artists. The problem is that said occultism is very much a mix of superstition, and frankly, bullshit, denuded of the religious elements of the Gnostics and Kabbalahists. However, that said, it isn't totally impenetrable the way the Zohar is, and is interesting at least as a historical curiosity.

I have read Jung's ideas on alchemy, as he is about my favourite writer. That was how I first came across the idea of alchemy in the first place, so I have always seen it as a symbolic process more than in any other way. Generally, I approach most esoteric ideas from that angle, but that doesn't mean dismissing them, because the symbolic is the language of the psyche.

I think Hegel needs to be taken in the right historical context. His "statism" was a reaction to the French Revolution that promoted individualism which many saw as leading to anarchy and chaos. The Germans were different from the French, they preferred stability, law and order to the unbridled idealism and individualism of the French. Plus, they had no choice. In a world system of conflicting imperial interests, they needed an ordered, successful and strong economy and the state and military to promote and defend that.

Germany was a world leader in science, technology, education and the arts. It wasn't just the Americans who borrowed from the Germans. But I'm not sure "German philosophy" is the real problem in America. Don't forget that Marxism was another Darwinist "German philosophy" that believed in a new type of man to replace the old. I think the problem is that multinational corporations and financial groups have infiltrated and taken over the political system which now runs more and more according to their interests and less and less according to the interests of the people. People can see that after decades of "progress" not much has changed. Even Clinton and Obama with their "Change" and "Yes We Can" slogans left quite a lot unchanged. People are beginning to distrust politicians in general and turn to any populist figure for solutions. Unfortunately, that will never really work unless and until the root causes of it all are addressed. — Apollodorus

I love the historical view of things because so much is a reaction to something else. Considering your concerns you might want to know what bureaucratic order has to do with reality.

The Military-Industrial Complex or New World Order may have begun as a need for national defense but lacking awareness of it and trying to change things has the US in serious need of psychoanalysis. Forget all the emotionally disturbing stuff that goes with Hitler and WWII, and just focus on the organization of power. There is no way the US federal government could do all things it is doing today without adopting Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. I don't care if it is Republicans in power or Democrats, they are both driving the same car (Military Industrial Complex).

Aldous Huxley said- "-In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing, but its organizational and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely."

Frank Gervasi praised Hoover for the organization of government that gave it huge powers it never had before, in the book "Big Government". Roosevelt called in Hover to reorganize the government to accomplish what Roosevelt was able to accomplish during the Great Depression. Our government today could not be working with industry to get vaccines out, and send checks to everyone, and plan a major infrastructure restructuring without the bureaucratic order set by Hoover and Roosevelt and developed by Eisenhower. Socialism versus capitalism :lol: Gee people can argue about that but they are clueless when it comes to understanding the government organization that makes socialism possible and that we already have it. That happened long ago during the Great Depression.

Some books, warning of the dangers of giving government these new powers, were written and then when we went to war :gasp: the marriage between Industry and Government really alarmed the people who paid attention to the importance of organization. The Military-Industrial complex is not just about war. It is about our government's relationship with industry and a transfer of power from citizens to the government.

In 1830 Tocqueville warned Christian democracies would become despots that control the minute details of our lives, leaving us nothing to do. We are as children given a bucket full of water and paintbrushes to help paint the house when the adults are actually doing the painting, not the children. The philosophies that relate to our personal liberty and power, are coloring books we give the children to keep them out of the way unless we understand the organization of political and economic power.

I really did have a tutor who thought that life after death might consist in us living eternally as disencarnate entities. However, the whole topic of bodies in afterlife is one which makes me laugh because my mum has always considered spoken of concern about what kind of bodies people would have after the resurrection, whether they would be glamorous and, whether the elderly would be given back their youth. Also, when I went to an evangelical church, I can remember people talking about what meals they would have after the resurrection. But, really, I think if you read the Bible, especially Paul, he is speaking more about spiritual bodies, rather than earthly ones. — Jack Cummins

I have seen some pretty ugly people and the idea that in heaven they might look in the mirror and see an attractive person, and others were attracted to them as they never experienced in their previous lifetime, they could not possibly be who they are, but obviously would be someone else. That would be a real head trip.

Except as I imagine reincarnation, we would have to forget our previous lives or instead of having a new life, we would be living the old one. I do not want to spend eternity in the life I have had. I work at forgetting my past. I would like reincarnation best if I had a totally new life each time. It would be nice to keep the knowledge I have intentionally gained but not the memories of this personality.

One reason I have worked so hard to gain knowledge is what if I do end up at that big dining table in the sky and I am seated next to the great people of history. It would be so embarrassing to be ignorant of them and their achievements and the history of their time. Seriously that thought really bothers me.

I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, Athena. That was not my intention. What I should have said was that those ideas seem to me to depict a worse scenario than the one I see. But really my broader point was that theorized or disciplined philosophical study have no necessary connection to good citizenship. It might improve it, it might make it worse, that is an open question — Tom Storm

Sorry about that misunderstanding. It was something you said to someone else that I thought was a personal attack and now I am embarrassed about making an issue of something that I probably should have ignored. However, you surprise me by saying "that theorized or disciplined philosophical study have no necessary connection to good citizenship" :gasp:

I must totally misunderstand what you said because there is an important difference between being a Frenchman or a German when these two countries were fighting each other and it is philosophical notions that make people so different. The US prepared with education in Greek and Roman classics or dropping that and preparing the young with Geman philosophy, is a totally different culture! Christianity without literacy in Greek and Roman classics is not the same as Christianity with German philosophy.

Democracy without arte and preparation for being a generalist has serious problems. Philosophy can lead to a despot or against such.

In my mind what you said is not a correct understanding of what is so.

The Military-Industrial complex is not just about war. It is about our government's relationship with industry and a transfer of power from citizens to the government. — Athena

Correct. The big bankers and industrialists already had strong influence on the government and its economic and foreign policies for which purpose they established organizations like the Federal Reserve, Bankers Trust, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and many others. Then they used WW2 and the military-industrial complex to literally take over a government that was completely dependent on them. The Rockefellers and their associates who were replacing the Morgans were particularly good at that.

So, basically, power was transferred from the people to government and from government to the military-industrial complex and the cabal of bankers and industrialists behind it. Democracy in America, as in most of the world, is just a show to fool the masses. And people like Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, all know it too well. No career politician can possibly not know that which means that they are complicit in it. So, you can think for yourself what kind of world we live in and what sort of future awaits us unless we wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately, the epidemic, environmentalism, BLM and other such movements only serve to deflect attention, energy, intelligence, and time from what's going on. And you can't say anything because you get shouted down before you even open your mouth. We might as well be in China or North Korea.

Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, all know it too well. — Apollodorus

Interesting you don't include Reagan, Bush and Bush. Also when people are talking about a 'cabal of bankers' this is often coded anti-semitism. Where are you headed?

Interesting you don't include Reagan, Bush and Bush. — Tom Storm

I only mentioned those that are regarded by the left as "heroes" and "saviors" which of course they aren't. If you think otherwise, that's fine by me.

I only mentioned those that are regarded by the left as "heroes" and "saviors" which of course they aren't. If you think otherwise, that's fine by me. — Apollodorus

Not sure many leftists would consider them heroes. Reminds me of the famous quote by Gore Vidal. There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.

I must totally misunderstand what you said because there is an important difference between being a Frenchman or a German when these two countries were fighting each other and it is philosophical notions that make people so different. — Athena

You partly understand me. What you have described are cultural differences, which are a mix of nationalism, propaganda and, yes, some of this is philosophically derived, sure. I didn't say ideas weren't important. I was simply referring to academic or the serious study of philosophy, which most people don't do and still manage to be good people. A simple observation of no particular worth.

There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party — Tom Storm

Well, I'm not American. I called them "cabal" because that's the normal word for them in English. And if the Rockefellers and the Morgans are "Semites" then I apologize profusely. But they're still a cabal or "Property Party" if you prefer. Main thing is they don't represent the people unless you object to that as well.

Main thing is they don't represent the people unless you object to that as well. — Apollodorus

I am not objecting, I am clarifying. Sometimes people like to spray around the Protocols to the Elders of Zion type stuff, which is all about a cabal of bankers and how society is controlled by a vast conspiracy. These ideas are very old and multipurpose and take a range of forms.

As to representing the people - politics sometimes manages to do this but generally by accident.

I am not objecting, I am clarifying. Sometimes people like to spray around the Protocols to the Elders of Zion type stuff — Tom Storm

Clarifying what exactly? You come up with that stuff yourself and then blame it on me? What next?

Your defensiveness is interesting. Clarifying means asking questions - it's what we do here. No need to be suspicious, A.

Your defensiveness is interesting. — Tom Storm

What "defensiveness"? You call people "anti-semites" for no reason and then accuse them of being "defensive"?

You agree with me that a cabal or "Property Party" has taken over and that power has been taken away from the people. So why are you trying to prevent people from speaking up by calling them "anti-semites"? How does that serve the interests of democracy and freedom? Just wondering.

You call people "anti-semites" for no reason — Apollodorus

Evidence for your defensiveness right here. You used an anti-Semitic trope 'cabal of bankers' and I asked for clarification. Your response is that you are being called anti-Semitic. You will remember I asked you - 'Where are you headed?" This is not calling you an anti-Semite. It is clarifying your position. If you are not suggesting a world conspiracy of Jewish bankers and industrialists then that's great. Happy to hear it and we can move on.

So why are you trying to prevent people from speaking up by calling them "anti-semites"? — Apollodorus

And please stop using such weak attacks as a defense. I am not trying to stop you or anyone from posing questions and presenting ideas. If your ideas are so brittle that my attempt at clarifications are spun by you as an attempt to try to 'prevent' you or anyone from engaging in a discussion, that's on you, Bud.

I have no problem with people calling out aspects of our political system as dysfunctional and corrupt. Clearly it is. But the devil is in the detail.