Yes, the enlightenment is about ending ignorance and realizing the human potentia — Athena

No. Enlightenment was about introducing a new view and calling those not complying to the view ignorant. As you put it, humanity stumbled in the dark until the light of Enlightenment enlightened their stumbling in dark ignorance. Can you see the same use of language I used in praying to the holy creator? "Brothers and sisters, let's pray! Let's thank the Holy Being Science, without Whom we would stumble in the dark eternally. Let's be inspired by the gift She bestowed on us and condem the pagan who refuses to submit to Her Just and Glorious Way. If we not bow to Her Strict and Firm Authority, a Purified Cleansing will rain down from the Great Holy Void and wipe out nature, sparing the chosen few only and annihilate the sinful...." etc.

The Enlightenment looks back to the ancient Greek and continues what she started. Logic analysis, the existence of one unknowable reality (initiated by Xenophanes, disregarding the multitude of tangible gods and replacing him by a single faceless monster with superpowers), mathematics, the longing for knowledge of nature by placing yourself oppositely to her, democracy, etc. In the face of the religious madness in those dark days, the Enlightenment was indeed freeing. But it has turned the world in a more dark place than ever and natural disasters, the still immanent thread of a global nuclear conflict, wars raged with technological monstrosities, and an unprecedented poverty and hunger, a cultural monotony, and a deterioration of spoken language, makes the religious madness in the dark ages seem childplay.

But it has turned the world in a more dark place than ever and natural disasters, the still immanent thread of a global nuclear conflict, wars raged with technological monstrosities, and an unprecedented poverty and hunger, a cultural monotony, and a deterioration of spoken language, makes the religious madness in the dark ages seem childplay. — Raymond

It meaning Enlightenment? You really think that negative aspects of the modern World exist because of Enlightenment?

With the same kind of thinking, perhaps we would be better of with any kind higher culture or society.

No. Enlightenment was about introducing a new view and calling those not complying to the view ignorant.[/quote]

Okay, have a good day. We are done.

call

Okay, have a good day. We are done. — Athena

Like I wrote. A taboo.

It meaning Enlightenment? — ssu

Not in my eyes. That is how it calls itself. And the ignorant haven't seen the light.

? You really think that negative aspects of the modern World exist because of Enlightenment? — ssu

If "Enlightened" thinking didn't exist, the negative aspects wouldn't exist either. Enlightened thinking doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every way of life has its positives and negatives.

With the same kind of thinking, perhaps we would be better of with any kind higher culture or society — ssu

The 'same" kind of thinking? What kind of thinking? Why should one culture be better than another? Because a vacuous claim on objectivity? Religious societies do exactly the same. "God is the enlightment", the true and only. In what respect is science different? That it's True true? Don't get me wrong. I love science. But why should it be a measure for all? Why is it obligatory, as ordered by state, that the young are systematically trained in the enlightened path of science? Because the other paths make no sense or are nonsense?

Once again, the point is that if the absence of harm can be considered better, then the lack of happiness is bad. — DA671

Right, but you have missed the point for why I am saying this is wrong.
1) Absence of harm is better because there is no collateral damage. No one is deprived of harm either. Therefore
2) Absence of happiness is not better or worse for anyone.

In one case, some ONE experiences the presence of badness. In the other case some ONE does not, nor does some ONE experience the LACK of happiness? See how that goes?

This is only about consistency, but I did also mention in my previous reply that I am willing to consider non-creation to be neutral. However, it still would not be obligatory, and creating the positives will always matter. The "imbalance" lies in your arguments, not mine. — DA671

Why would it always matter? No because you still don't get the 1 and 2 above so we cannot really move forward until you do. Perhaps ask clarifying questions to see if there is a flaw or if you are not understanding but don't move forward until you address 1 and 2.

the lack of all life cannot be considered a moral obligation due to the fact that the genesis of the positives is necessarily good. I am repeating myself, yet again, that if the creation of "collateral damage" is bad, the creation of innumerable goods is good. — DA671

Yes, but I didn't deny goods are good. I only explained how in one scenario there collateral damage, and in the other there is no collateral damage taking place AND no one to be deprived of the "innumerable goods". This about facts on the ground. In one case, there is suffering, in the other there is not AND there is no one to be deprived of the goods. In other words there is no collateral damage to happiness for any ONE like there is collateral damage in regards to badness. That is the asymmetry I am pointing to. Take a minute to really understand that thought before you answer.

You are the one who seems to be missing the point since you refuse to see things from outside your lens. If nobody is born, nobody is harmed. This is either neutral or good. If it is good that the harms do not exist, I do not see any reason to think that the lack of happiness is not bad. If it is neutral and the only relevant consideration are the lives of those who exist, then the creation of happiness can certainly be good, just as the presence of harms might be bad. If someone is born, one can experience a happy life due to a decision someone else was capable enough to take for them. — DA671

Yes more evidence of you missing the point.. You are again talking about "good" for non-existent. I am talking about facts on the ground. One more time now... In one instance there is collateral damage, and in the other there is. You as the parent then makes the determination.. "Is it good to create collateral damage".. If you think it is, then I am saying this could be misguided or unethical.. Should one create collateral damage on another person's behalf because one has a certain notion of value and happiness? Is a "gift" a "gift" if it comes with inescapable and perpetual harms and suffering? I say no to that. If you think that collateral damage on someone else's behalf is a good thing because you think that your decision represents the aggregate opinions of the human race on happiness.. I would then say that this is irrelevant. You are causing collateral damage unnecessarily for someone else, and this fact alone precludes it from an ethically "right" or ethically "just" action. It is essentially using the child for your notion of value or your other reasonings for having children. Someone else's pain is your excuse for X. That is a violation of dignity.. similar to Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative.. though people try to get around it by his use of "merely"..

I care more about the actual implications of a view, not what one might think about it. Personally, I don't think that it makes sense to call an act a harm (collateral "damage") if it does not lead to a worse state of affairs for a person. The comparison might be an abstract one (though I tend to disagree with that), but it still exists and gives us a reason to deem one state of affairs to be more ethical over another. One could plausibly say that it's "better" for a person to not live and suffer than it would be to exist. But if that is the case, I think that it is also instrumentally worse for them to not experience the positives of life, irrespective of whether or not there is any concious feeling of deprivation. In my view, an ethical obligation exists (in terms of harms/benefits) only when it's clear that doing or not doing the act always leads to an outcome that's preferable or undesirable for the person. If neither has any value, then the lack of action can only be ethically neutral, not obligatory. Neutrality is better than a bad outcome (the negatives), but it is also worse than a good one (happiness), and, considering that many people do cherish their lives, I think that it can be justifiable to create a person. — DA671

This goes into debates of post-facto "life is good" evaluations.. People have instincts of self-preservation and usually aren't just suicidal at the drop of a hat. This doesn't negate the fact that a decision was made on their behalf that caused suffering for someone. That is what is going on.. Paternalistic ideas that "Life is good for the sufferer because most say they like it".. doesn't just negate the unnecessary causing of suffering.

You once again employ double standards when you start talking about deprivations with reference to the lack of happiness. If creating suffering leads to "collateral harms", giving birth also contribute to the formation of invaluable positives that do have worth. — DA671

Value matters nothing to no one.. If someone isn't born to experience happiness it is only a loss to the parent's projection of a person, not any person. Yes, there is no one to experience the "lack of harm" either but my whole point is exactly that.. no COLLATERAL DAMAGE is taking place in that instance. If you are ok with the fact that collateral damage is good to cause for someone in such a profound way because of X reasons (happiness).. that is the misguided ethical thinking I am saying is not right.

Although I consider "start for someone else" to be slightly misleading, since it can seem to imply as if someone already existed who was brought into a harmful state where harms began, the simple truth is that there also is the formation of happiness in one case, and there isn't any value in the other. I believe that it can be good to choose the former. — DA671

Um, start for someone else.. yeah means a life was "started" where there wasn't one prior.

Once again, you are missing the point.
1. If the absence of harm is good because there is "no collateral damage", the lack of happiness is also bad because there is no benefit. And nobody is satisfied from the absence of damage, so if the lack of goods is not problematic, then the absence of harms cannot be good.

2. Neither is the absence of harms (if the absence of happiness is not). However, the truth is that the lack of happiness does lead to harms (for existing people) and vice versa. If the absence of harms is considered good in one sense, the lack of happiness is also bad.

In one case, someone experiences the presence of happiness. In the other case, one does not, and neither do they feel the benefits of a lack of suffering. This is exactly how it goes.

I think there are flaws in your position that you did not ever try to address, which has undoubtedly played a role in shaping your incorrect view ;)

I also did not deny that suffering or "collateral damage" is not bad. I only showed that in one scenario there are goods and in the other, there aren't any. Additionally, nobody benefits from the lack of harm/damage. In one case there is also immense happiness and in the other case there is none, and there is nobody to be satisfied from all the prevented harms. I am afraid that it's you who has failed to understand that there is no "asymmetry" here, and that is what the facts on the ground tell us.

I do not think that creating happy lives necessarily requires creating harm, though it is certainly possible that some would, unfortunately, exist (but one can hope that many of them could be eliminated through ideas such as transhumanism). Yet again, you did not grasp my point, which was ultimately about a consistent position. If you believe that creating "damage" is bad, you would believe that not doing so is either good or neutral. If it is good to not create harms, I think it is also bad to not have any value. But if all that matters is existence, then just as creating harm can be bad, creating happiness can be good, I am not sure if Kant said anything about using your subjective opinion to degrade/ignore all the positives of existence on the basis of an arbitrary "asymmetry". Nobody has an interest in not existing, so your decision to not create them is not exactly serving their interests. However, I would say that if it is bad to create a negative life, it can also be good to create a good one with the right intentions (and provided one cares for the child). If you believe that preventing all good is justifiable, then it is you who is holding the ethically indefensible position. Nobody exists for them to be "used", and people can find value without one having to push it down one's throat. Bestowing positive values that one could not ask for before existing can definitely be good.

People also have negativity biases that can lead them to focus on the negatives. Nevertheless, I do think that value is quite subjective, so I would not claim that all lives were worthwhile. A person could have plenty of material comforts and be sad, or have almost nothing in terms of material wealth but be happy. I am not saying that anybody should be forced to endure a worthless existence, which is why I support the right to die. However, this does not change the fact that creating someone can also cause invaluable happiness (the creation of which is not harmful to someone else), and it does matter.

In that case, the absence of damage/harm also has no significance. If someone does not exist, it is only a benefit to the potential parents' (who might be projecting their pessimistic biases!), not the person who was never born. Lack of harm is the opposite of "collateral" damage, so your point seems to be illogical. If you are okay with the idea that preventing all intensely meaningful experiences is justifiable for the sake of preventing some harms, then I do not think I would be able to agree with such a view, for it seems to be fundamentally limited to me.

I am aware it was, but I do not think it was done "for" someone; someone was simply created. "For" generally implies an act that is done with reference to a person who exists, but this is a minor nitpick.

By the way, I hope that you have a nice day!

1. If the absence of harm is good because there is "no collateral damage", the lack of happiness is also bad because there is no benefit. And nobody is satisfied from the absence of damage, so if the lack of goods is not problematic, then the absence of harms cannot be good. — DA671

I am just going to focus on this point, because it is so central. It is a fact, not a value opinion that no collateral damage is taking place. Do we agree there?

I am not sure. After all, there might be invisible souls suffering due to a lack of existence ;)

I am not sure. After all, there might be invisible souls suffering due to a lack of existence ;) — DA671

I am guessing because of the wink, you do indeed agree. Right?

Yes, I agree that there is no intrinsically valuable benefit and what you call "collateral damage". But I would again say that if the latter is positively significant, the former is negatively so.

Yes, I agree that there is no intrinsically valuable benefit and what you call "collateral damage". But I would again say that if the latter is positively significant, the former is negatively so. — DA671

We are just talking about my major point, which is in one case 1) A state of affairs of collateral damage is taking place. In another 2) A state of affairs of collateral damage is not taking place.. The background assumption being that it COULD have.

The major point has been discussed ad infinitum. 1. A state of affairs of immense value is taking place.

In another 2) A state of immense value is not taking place. It certainly could have :p

Right, that is your argument, I understand. But before we get to why I think that doesn't matter, can we agree on the first?

It does matter, but go ahead.

No, we really do need to agree that in one instance collateral damage is taking place, and in another, it is not. We are not talking about any other contingencies because first we have to agree that this exists if we are to debate anything else, otherwise we are still stuck here and debating this argument again and again.

Would you agree that there are also goods that are taking place, and in the other case, there aren't? If not, then there is no point in endless repetition.

Would you agree that there are also goods that are taking place, and in the other case, there aren't? If not, then there is no point in endless repetition. — DA671

Sure do.

I always said that I do agree that there is harm in existence (at least, for now).

Ok, I'll take that as you agree there is no collateral damage in one and collateral damage in the other.

So for the sake of this argument, can we agree to limit the argument to be about states of affairs and not about projections of future people? That I believe is where we are talking past each other in this particular argument.

Talking about damage that does not exist is also a "projection" of sorts, but I suppose I agree.

Talking about damage that does not exist is also a "projection" of sorts, but I suppose I agree. — DA671

Actually that is a major disagreement. A state of affairs where something does not happen, is still an actual state of affairs.

I would say that it has no value. However, I can agree for the sake of the argument that it certainly is, which is why a state of affairs where happiness does not happen might also be an actually relevant one. But I digress, so I do agree that the actual states of affairs are important.

Following your advice, refraining from procreation, would end all human existence in 150 years. If no one gets telomerized, that is, which is highly unlikely and shifts the problem to immortality. There will be no more suffering, no more happiness, and nature will be released from a damaging influence.

You really think that negative aspects of the modern World exist because of Enlightenment — ssu

Do you really think the positive aspects of the modern world exist because of enlightenment?

I planted a couple of trees recently, and I swear I heard the wind whisper "thank you" in my ear ;)

That I call Enlightenment with a true capital P! It even brings a tear to the edge of my eye! But I'm too damned proud to let it flow... :smile:

Why should one culture be better than another? Because a vacuous claim on objectivity? Religious societies do exactly the same. — Raymond

Start first from either having a culture or not. Culture starting from some specialization in the society, things like language and then written language, agriculture, or not having all that. Being just hunter-gatherers. Can you make an claim that one is more preferred to the individual or is it a too vacuous claim?

Yes, positive or negative are quite subjective, yet we ought to make some conclusions on what is better than something else.

The links I gave you were not my sources of information. My sources of information are old books about education and include old grade school textbooks that are no longer in circulation. And thank you so much for recognizing the biggest reason humans disagree is different sources of information. I seem to be at war with everyone because my sources of information came from the past. — Athena

That is very interesting. I am really interested in your research because indeed schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society. In that sense I really like this foray in different education systems. I did (and do) not know enough about the change in education system in the 18th and 19th century. So your old text books are really great sources of information. Can I ask, do you have a theory for your research, in other words is it guided by a certain hypothesis or theoretical framework? I am immediately thinking about a Foucauldian research on 'governmentality' and what the governmentality is of these different systems of schooling, the old American way and the Prussian system. Do you do your research yourself or in the context of a PhD research? Is there a research community or are you working on this by yourself?

My apologies. The problem you mentioned in this paragraph was totally my fault and I realized that while driving to the store. I regretted not having a more playful response to what you said about Athena. And as I said above, I feel like I stand alone because of the old books giving me a different perspective. I feel very burdened by the information I gathered many years ago, when I began buying old books about education to gain an understanding of my grandmother's generation of teachers, who thought they were defending democracy in the classroom. :lol: :cry: Oh, the futility of it all. My grandmother was a very important source of information and you would have to know her to know why. She and her generation are all dead now and facts are not enough to explain how different our past was. — Athena

Yes, yes, well we all have the idea we do the right thing and we all grow up in certain systems, certain ways of doing we take for granted now. That is the beauty of Foucauldian research and the beauty of the research you do, because it might show how this system we all take for granted is not all that 'natural' or 'logical'. However, also us have that bias and even you as a researcher, in that respect you need a lot of extra information, surrounding the schooling system. That explains my question about the embeddedness of your research, because you would be burdened doing everything by yourself without other to talk to and to compare data with others who share a similar interest. Historic research is very hard to do because you need a grasp of the interlocking structures of these societies you examine.

The root of the illusion of disagreement is the difference between Prussia and Germany. Have you read Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German Problem'? He was trying to warn the world of Germany's intentions to go to war and he was ignored until the first world war had begun. This was one of the first books I bought when I began my research. I bought it because of great admiration for the Germans and I had heard the US had adopted the German model of education. The other book I bought that same day, was a copy of the 1917 National Education Association Convention. These two books are the beginning of the burden I feel. — Athena

No, I cannot say I have read that book. I also do not know it. It might be. There is a history behind WW1 as well of course. Recently historians are more sensitive to the idea that the narrative that Germany (or austria-Hungary together with Germany) started the big war. There are many causes and resaons for such a war. However, indeed The 19th century was a golden age for Germany and the dominant force in Germany was Prussia.

I do wonder about this burden you feel. As a researcher I hardly feel any burden myself also not when I see things going wrong. Burdens you wish to resolve. As a researcher I feel I do not want anything, I just gather data and analyze and offer my analysis. If you want to resolve issues, you are in danger of turning into an activist. What is your personal stake in the research if I may ask?

They became politically irresponsible and this really distressed Charles because he saw them as the superior people. All this relates to what happened to the US and Trump being our Hitler and the political struggles we have now because of reactionary politics just as Germany had before Hitler was able to take power. There is an education link to all of this. — Athena

I agree there is an educational link. I think one should be careful to compare historical times with current ones. I would not easily compare Trump to Hitler even though I am not fond of the former president. Where I think parallels lie is because of 'depolitization' of society at least on the level of education. But it is a thorny one, the Weimar republic was torn apart in struggles between left, extreme left and conservative. Hitler came to power in a society that falling apart, polarization is visible now too, but of a different kind. It is tempting to paint broad brush strokes, but one needs to keep being sensitive to the differences.

Please give that paragraph some thought so you get the nuances in what I am saying. What I am saying is not without nuances! I just can not say everything all at once. Imagine entering a relatively high-tech war, with a population that knows though about technology. No typist, no mechanics, no engineers, but they know about Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Lincoln as national heroes and have an idea of what is expected of them as good citizens. You know, like God's good children. They knew our national mythology that had as much to do with real-life as Homer's books, that told the Greeks how to be Greeks. (Americanized Greek mythology) — Athena

Yes, I do and find it fascinating. Also here I see many links to governmentality research. The states of Europe, in the 18th and 19th due to mutual competition perfected the science of the state, aptly called 'statistics'. Germany, but also France and the UK had to mobilize the people to gain the upper hand in the race for the colonies. In the US there was space enough, no competition and there was enough land to carve out a good agricultural living. However, do not idealize one form or the other. Those children of God also ruthlessly murdered the native Americans and institutionalized a system of racial aprtheid until well into the 20th century. Ideas in the 18th and 19th century were just very backward everywhere.

The Prussians lived for the love of military might, as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. So we technologically were in big trouble but now think of the teachers' argument. Education for patriotic citizens and mobilizing the nation for war. The book of the1917 National Education Association is full of interesting information about mobilizing for war. — Athena

There is of course and it is a fascinating read. Warfare was something in which to take pride. The Prussians indeed cultivated this sense, but the US had to catch up fast and of course in 1917 the US was embroiled in a cataclysmic European war, no wonder the subject of mass mobilization is of great interest.

Now let us jump to 1958 and the new warfare of air warfare and nuclear missiles. President Eisenhower put the Military-Industrial Complex, also known as Hitler's New World Order, in place, and the 1958 National Defense Education Act is an essential piece to the Military-Industrial Complex. We can now mobilize for war in 4 hours or less, long before the citizens need to be mobilized for war. Patriotism was essential to past wars, it is no longer important. Are you thinking of the differences in education and the cultural differences? I hope so. I hope you come back with a reply that advances this discussion. — Athena

Yes I am. Whether I have an answer I do not know. Of course we have technological warfare now. The patriotic spirit in the sense of 'dying for one's country' is less needed. If we want to educate the people for war we would need to ferret out the technical minds. The way we make war palatable now is to present it as a computer game. the images are of people falling not of them crying in agony. War is sensitized. It is not presented in a patriotic way but as something that happens far away, in another world. War has become something to manage. War has become 'eco-nomics', household management. The word is very different from your grand mother's cold war world.

That is also why I am puzzled sometimes with the things you say. What do you mean with 'Hitler's new world order'? I thought the world order we inherited was the world order of the cod war, a bipolar world order pitting capitalism against communism...

Specialization is poison to democracy! Can we turn to classical literature once again? Pericles' raised the spirits of his fellow citizens at a funeral for fallen warriors, by comparing the differences between Sparta and Athens, and why Athens is right to defend its way of life in war. Sparta specialized their males for military service. All other work was done by slaves. Sparta determined what citizens needed and provided it through the use of slaves. Our technocracy is in line with Sparta the enemy of Athens. — Athena

Too unnuanced for my taste. Maybe ok as a comparison, but Athens' democracy was also build on slaves and could only work by excluding the great mass of people from consensus decision making. The same actually goes for the US in times past. The model of democracy you seem to favour actually requires the exclusion of many people and many legitimate interests. Enlightenment democracy is democracy for the happy few. In the 19th century the challenge the Prussians faced and later the rest of the world was how to manage a mass society, a society in which everyone wanted a voice. One way was discipline and drilling as the school system does. You call specialization a poison to democracy and that goes hand in hand with this. Specialization though might well his sociological inevitability. It is not coincidental that the great sociologists of old were... Germans. The greatest of which, Max Weber, grew up in Prussia and very meticulously already analyzed the 'iron cage' of bureaucratization.

The US had education that generalized everyone. Education for well-rounded individual growth. At the same time was education for independent thinking. These differences are why I keep speaking of the 1958 change in education that most certainly took us in the direction of specialization and replaced education for independent thinking with "groupthink". We have been killing our democracy since 1958. — Athena

However, the Prussian model was than already firmly adopted. So was it then the Prussian model or the act of mass mobilization? Again there is no fundamental disagreement and I think your research is fascinating. We cannot go back to the times of old and I would also not idealize those. Too many genocides are committed by people who live on earth revering heroes. The old native ones were eradicated... The challenge will be to keep mass education, it is a fundamental right and I think fundamental to a healthy modern democracy, but to bring back a sense of generalization, extend our awareness through space and time, because also the world is becoming smaller and the 'now' is extending itself rapidly, as evinced by discussions of our past and rights of future generations. Anoth imperative is restoring some sort of link with the earth and our environment, in a democratic way. No easy task though.

That is very interesting. I am really interested in your research because indeed schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society. In that sense I really like this foray in different education systems. I did (and do) not know enough about the change in education system in the 18th and 19th century. So your old text books are really great sources of information. Can I ask, do you have a theory for your research, in other words is it guided by a certain hypothesis or theoretical framework? I am immediately thinking about a Foucauldian research on 'governmentality' and what the governmentality is of these different systems of schooling, the old American way and the Prussian system. Do you do your research yourself or in the context of a PhD research? Is there a research community or are you working on this by yourself? — Tobias

I am sorry I am only a domestic woman. Pay careful attention here and look for the gray that is both black or white. And know your questions are greatly expanding my own understanding of everything! You are giving me an enlightening moment of the kind that brings me to this forum. I do have a college education and I listen to college lectures daily. But I have never transitioned into the kind of educated person of which you speak. To me, your questions about having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD, is a language from Mars. Despite all my education, and self-education, I am still a domestic woman. And I will think I have died and gone to heaven if you are willing to explore this with me.

When I was working on a degree in Gerontology, I learn the difference between being a domestic woman and a college graduate. These are completely different consciousness with different languages and this plays to into the other questions you have asked. I learned about this difference through researching middle-aged women. The research I needed was not in the abstracts. I had to rely on the research women had done, and the work was not accepted by the males who control what goes into the abstracts. I am not talking about feminism here or sexual prejudice. I am talking about male and female differences and education was ruled by women! Because it was seen as most women's work like child care.

Oh dear, this is rough and I have to divide your reply because there is so much to say here. Not only do women think and behave differently from men, but domestic women have a different language and organize themselves differently. Women are much more personal than men who are organizational. My male professor was a chauvinist male whose knowledge of life was limited to men just like him. His vision of the world and mine clashed!. He refused to accept any research that was not in the abstracts, which goes with your interest in having a theoretical framework, or "context of a PhD,". How male those values are. He also shared with us that when his father died, he put his mother in a residence where she had to be completely dependent on others, and would not even allow her to drive. He forced her to give up her home, her friends, her whole life, and then said to class he wonders if that made it more difficult for her to adjust to being a widow. This was the head of the gerontology department and he could not have done worse to his mother. But what he did is typical male thinking according to the research I did. In the past women took care of everyone and men paid for someones to care for the children and the aged.

Now, what do you think education should teach us? You said "schooling, the way we mold our citizenry is a crucial aspect in the way we govern society." I said women were in control of education. Yes, the education experts tended to men. All the positions of "authority" would have been held by men, except in the one-room schools, where an 18-year-old woman was expected to give children of all ages an education, as though this were no different from any other child care. I am speaking of my grandmother's generation of teachers. Most grade school teachers were women. All education was based on liberal education. We teach children math to teach them how to think. We teach them the American mythology that is in history books. Education is about literacy and reading the classics, not about having a high-tech job. Am I conveying a feeling about education that is helpful in answering your questions?

That explains my question about the embeddedness of your research, because you would be burdened doing everything by yourself without other to talk to and to compare data with others who share a similar interest. Historic research is very hard to do because you need a grasp of the interlocking structures of these societies you examine. — Tobias

Oh for sure, for sure! I desperately need the input of others! What we are thinking needs to be challenged from an outside source or we are not really thinking. This is why the Conceptual method is so important and what is wrong with the Behaviorist method. learning increasingly complex concepts stimulates true thinking. The Behaviorist method is about memorizing the required information and passing test. The Behaviorist method is programming, not developing a thinking human being. Have you seen the movie The Reader". I saw it long ago and my memory is vague, but the gist is a German woman who is illiterate is found guilty of war crimes. She was not guilty but was hiding the fact she could not read. If she had let that be known she would have been found innocent. A man takes interest in her and when she goes to prison, he sends her audio tapes of the classics. You see, she was only following orders and that was being a good Nazi and she had no concept of independent moral judgment and refusing to follow orders. That would have depended on knowing the classics and thinking about right and wrong.

Why do we recoil at Nazis following orders? Why have today's prisoners who, in prison, study the classics, become changed, people? Here is a problem with Christianity- it is not Jesus saving anyone but learning good moral judgment, and social rules, good citizenship, and peer support and pressure that makes us good. When we had liberal education based on the classics and being literate, we were fulfilling the promise of the enlightenment. Education for technology does not do that! Now we have a technologically very smart society, without wisdom.

The belief that we are evil unless saved by Jesus, is an educational problem because it has pit Christians against higher-order thinking skills that are essential to good moral judgment and small things like understanding why we should wear and mask and get vaccinated. Do you realize we actually have churches leading the fight against wearing masks and getting vaccinated?! Education for technology is not education for science and it is not education for good moral judgment. Education for technology prepares the young to rely on authority. Now we have an amoral society, that is threatened by both anarchy and authoritarianism, and the US doesn't have a leg to stand on in the international fight for democracy, and Trump is our Hitler, and some of his followers are in prison.

I am dying out here with this insight and no voice to answer everyone's question about what has gone wrong and what can we do about it. The 1958 National Defense Education is destroying the US. Now our children's libraries are filled with literary trash like "Captian Underwear" because that is what children will read, and no classics because children will not read the classics. Damn, right the kids won't read them, because they are not being educated to value them. While teachers blame the parents for not caring about their children and parents blame the schools for all the problems. And no one knows what the enlightenment had to do with our advancement nor what it means to defend democracy in the classroom. But we understand our right to bear arms. And I think we got talking about education by here by starting with global warming. This January Oregon is breaking temperature records, day after day. We think we know science, but we do not. We know technology and Christianity.
.

Yes, I do and find it fascinating. Also here I see many links to governmentality research. The states of Europe, in the 18th and 19th due to mutual competition perfected the science of the state, aptly called 'statistics'. Germany, but also France and the UK had to mobilize the people to gain the upper hand in the race for the colonies. In the US there was space enough, no competition and there was enough land to carve out a good agricultural living. However, do not idealize one form or the other. Those children of God also ruthlessly murdered the native Americans and institutionalized a system of racial aprtheid until well into the 20th century. Ideas in the 18th and 19th century were just very backward everywhere. — Tobias

You have a very important perspective on the development of government, but there is one more thing we need to know.

Government research :lol: I minored in public policy and administration. It was the most depressing time in my life! In the 60's I thought I wanted to be a social worker. Learning about government ended that desire! We adopted the German model of bureaucracy that goes with the Prussian model of education.
It is essential we understand education and war, and education and government order, andpreviously you mentioned military order!

The Prussian model of government is the Prussian military order applied to citizens. This begins with Prussian generals determining the military action and precisely defining every single task that is necessary to pull this off. Once the plan is complete, the swarm of ants (army) will do exactly as planned, even if every general is killed. Unlike kingdoms, bureaucracies never die.

In the old bureaucratic order used by the government and all businesses, everything depended on the individual aptitude of the person doing the job. If that person died or left for other reasons, it would throw the whole operation into chaos. The replacement would not do the job exactly as the person before, but organize the job to take advantage of his best abilities and delegate other responsibilities to someone else. That means everyone would have to adjust to the new person's way of doing things.

That was very inefficient and it was tied to nepotism. :gasp: You might imagine the problems with that. And this is also a social problem, a social problem the English education protected. England strongly supported the division of classes that they had and rejected Germany's education for technology because education for technology tends to be a social leveler. Suddenly with education, the commoners qualify for jobs because they have the training, AND hiring is based on merit. Merit hiring means uncle Joe who is an alcoholic and is lacks the necessary knowledge/training does not get the job, but the job is given to the man with no breeding, but the right training. Education for good citizenship and education for a good Englishman was not so different. As I stated, US education was about good citizenship, not technology and that meant the US was technological behind Germany and not ready for war. But Abraham Lincoln who grew up in the boonies could become president.

Sorry, that was very convoluted. President Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy shortly after the end of WWII. Education for technology and merit hiring is a social/economic leveler. Unfortunately, Eisenhower realized too late, the modern German model of bureaucracy, and education, leads to dependency on specialized experts. He warned us of that danger, but most Americans think what I am saying is a "conspiracy theory". They do not know enough about bureaucratic organization to see the problem. No matter what system is used, there will be problems. The Prussian model of bureaucracy is far superior to the one the US had. We could not have a national pension plan without that change. However, our past education, liberal or classical education is essential to our liberty and democracy.

You are right about the importance of governmental development, but we might want to keep Tocqueville's 1835 (Democracy in America) warning in mind. We are becoming a despot that is opposed to the democracy we had. Or as Aldous Huxley said. "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely."

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and only when citizens understand the importance of obeying the law (based on the laws of nature) can they have liberty.