Likewise. — Vera Mont

I am aware that the US has used military force for economic reasons and I have very strong feelings about Roman/Christian behavior that is unacceptable and based on an unjust belief in their superiority and entitlement. However, neither are the same as today's political/military actions. The goals were much smaller than they are today and they involve all of us more than in the past when the military conflicts were very small, compared to world wars and now world domination.

I am thinking the world wars, fundamentally changed the US attitude about war and this change is expressed in the 1958 National Defense Education Act. This is a good subject for a thread about technology changing our lives. I liken what the world wars did to the US with Athens after the Persian wars. Athens started forcing other city-states to continue paying tribute and the other city-states supported Sparta in crushing Athens. Leading Socrates and his followers to find fault with democracy.

United States focuses on military research and development
US military spending amounted to $801 billion in 2021, a drop of 1.4 per cent from 2020. The US military burden decreased slightly from 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2020 to 3.5 per cent in 2021.

US funding for military research and development (R&D) rose by 24 per cent between 2012 and 2021, while arms procurement funding fell by 6.4 per cent over the same period. In 2021 spending on both decreased. However, the drop in R&D spending (–1.2 per cent) was smaller than that in arms procurement spending (–5.4 per cent).

‘The increase in R&D spending over the decade 2012–21 suggests that the United States is focusing more on next-generation technologies,’ said Alexandra Marksteiner, Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. ‘The US Government has repeatedly stressed the need to preserve the US military’s technological edge over strategic competitors.’ — STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

I am thinking the world wars, fundamentally changed the US attitude about war and this change is expressed in the 1958 National Defense Education Act. — Athena

I say it wasn't a fundamental change but a stage. Their success in the world wars fed their ambition and expanded their scope and thirst for conquest. I say they followed the course of all empires, from smaller to larger to boastfully vast to too big to handle and the next step is too big to survive.
Did technology play a part in that? Of course; it always does. Having muskets put American colonists in a position to massacre Native Americans armed with bows.*
Same in other areas of warfare

In 1882, the U.S. Navy consisted of many outdated ship designs. Over the next decade, Congress approved building multiple modern steel-hulled armored cruisers and battleships, and by around the start of the 20th century had moved from twelfth place in 1870 to fifth place in terms of numbers of ships.

At the ends of WWII, hoovering up German military eggheads plus access to all the British innovations didn't hurt their technological odds, either.

*And double-crossing native allies was a well-established over 300 years before they did in Afghanistan. Also a routine practice for empires: The Spaniards did it in South America; the British did it in India; pretty much every European country screwed over Africa....

Does the technology not get used against civilians though? A drone dropping a bomb on a city may not be a human pilot, but the people the bomb is dropped on are still civilians all the same.

If the drone drops explosives on a purely technological and automated post then that is better in that people were not involved. But sadly tech operations and people (engineers/programmers/installers) are not inseparable. The tech doesn't arise out of thin air, so human victims are always a potential. — Benj96

And that is what is driving the spending on military technology. I should have saved the link I posted for this reply. It starts with air warfare and the nuclear bomb. Before those two things the US felt protected by the two oceans so it did not spend on developing a high-tech military force and it had a domestic education not education for technology.

Our lives did not change as rapidly as they are changing now and this changes everything. Constant rapid change disturbs the stability we need to feel in control of our lives. The whole ball game has been changed and Russia and China are threatening.

China has a much larger population than the US and this will mean many more highly intelligent college graduates. Not only will China have an advantage because of having a larger well-educated population but their eugenics program may assure China has more people born with a superior intelligence potential. With an interest in how technology is changing things, you might want to read this article about China's eugenics program. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23838

I say it wasn't a fundamental change but a stage. — Vera Mont

Are you saying the 1958 National Defense Education Act was not a fundamental change? Education in the US was modeled after Athens's education for well-rounded individual growth. That is the complete opposite to education that specializes in everyone. I can not think of anything that could change the US more radically than going from education for well-rounded individual growth to specialization.

Pericles of Athens spoke of the importance of being well-rounded in a democracy where the people hold the power to make their own laws or change them as needed. When people are specialized they must rely on the experts instead of trusting their own authority. A democracy needs people interested in many things so they can participate in a government that does many things.

Right now the US is experiencing culture wars and this is directly related to the change in education and ending the priority purpose of preparing everyone for good citizenship. We went from education for good moral judgment to amoral education, specifically so nothing would slow down our technological progress. We went from preparing everyone for independent thinking to "group think".

This is no longer the democracy we were. A decision that could be made in 15 minutes now takes months because of all the paper involved, and it is totally insane to think this is more efficient. Bureaucrats and teachers are so burdened with paperwork and so controlled by the policy, they have little time for anything else, like actually getting the work done. I would bet 5 years after covid is no longer an issue, we still have empty shelves in stores, and other obvious signs of a system breaking down because we have taken authority away from individuals who are now controlled by policy and paperwork. This is not the democracy we defended but what we defended our democracy against.

Are you saying the 1958 National Defense Education Act was not a fundamental change? — Athena

Yes, I am. It's not the 'after' picture I disagree with, but the 'before'.

Education in the US was modeled after Athens's education for well-rounded individual growth. — Athena

Where? When? How long? For which children?
Athens is where Socrates was snuffed for his critical thinking seminars? Where only the sons of well-off families could get any education, and where you would never have been allowed to teach? Yes, a similar system was in place in some parts of the United States for some part of the 18th and 19th centuries, available to some white children.

Apprenticeships began in America in the 1600's and was an early form of education. Since coming to the New World, the Puritans were needing skilled workers. These apprenticeships were developed to teach young boys a trade that they would continue into adulthood.

Need we mention the vast differences in church-sponsored education, in racially segregated education, in income levels?
Even 'common' town supported schools were not free, and smaller communities could barely support a single teacher in a one-room school. Then there was the mishmash of Christian schools and private schools of all kinds and various philosophies, some of them specializing in the education of women.

I think we do need to mention child labour:

Forms of child labor, including indentured servitude and child slavery, have existed throughout American history. As industrialization moved workers from farms and home workshops into urban areas and factory work, children were often preferred, because factory owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike.

The National Child Labor Committee’s work to end child labor was combined with efforts to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and culminated in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which set federal standards for child labor.

This makes the 1958 reform just another step in 20-year process.

Are you saying the 1958 National Defense Education Act was not a fundamental change?
— Athena

Yes, I am. It's not the 'after' picture I disagree with, but the 'before'.
Education in the US was modeled after Athens's education for well-rounded individual growth.
— Athena
Where? When? How long? For which children?

Apprenticeships began in America in the 1600's and was an early form of education. Since coming to the New World, the Puritans were needing skilled workers. These apprenticeships were developed to teach young boys a trade that they would continue into adulthood.
Need we mention the vast differences in church-sponsored education, in racially segregated education, in income levels? I think we do need to mention child labour:
Forms of child labor, including indentured servitude and child slavery, have existed throughout American history. As industrialization moved workers from farms and home workshops into urban areas and factory work, children were often preferred, because factory owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike.
The National Child Labor Committee’s work to end child labor was combined with efforts to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and culminated in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which set federal standards for child labor.
This makes the 1958 reform just another step in 20-year process. — Vera Mont

If you are really interested in the history of education you will love reading Paul Monroe, Ph.D.'s book "A Text Book on the History of Education published in 1910 or James Mulhern's book "A History of Education" copyright in 1946 and 1959. I am sure there are more but these are the ones I have and you should be glad to know how mucheducation is the result of philosophy from ancient times and increasingly so with Descartes, Locke,Spinoza, and Hobbes. Those who know only education for technology, for military and industrial purposes, and totally new and different experiences of education, and therefore a new and different experience of being humans.

You love philosophy so you should love knowing the Greeks debated such things as can a person learn ethics? At what age can they learn? There was a time when the Greeks thought only by age 30 were they ready for such education compared to the pope who said something like "Give me a child until age 6 and we will have him for life", which goes better with the philosophers I mentioned and their focus on education for good ethics. Something I come to appreciate even more, since reading Confucius and his contemporaries who were concerned with training one's self to be highly ethical.

It is very hard to answer you in a post short enough for people to read. Would you like to focus on 1635 and the Latin school, versus religiously controlled schools? That is where things get very interesting. Enlightenment versus Christianity.

How about passages from the 1917 National Education Association Conference? That book makes my heart swell with patriotic feelings. It really gave me a passion for education for democracy.

"The National Child Labor Committee’s work to end child labor was combined with efforts to provide free, compulsory education for all children, and culminated in the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, which set federal standards for child labor."

Child labor is shocking and that might be a problem because it could throw us in denial of the wrongs of autocratic industry that killed the children's mothers and fathers. The sin is complete disrespect for the well-being of others. We had child labor laws before that. And that sin is devoid of the thousands of years of philosophy that are available to us. :grin:

I think I have to stop working. It is interfering too much with my time for answering you. I really want to discuss the child labor act that kept children out of mines and industries during school hours and how industry tried to close the schools as we mobilized for WWI, claiming the war caused a labor shortage and they were not getting their monies worth from education because they still to train labors and what technology and war had to do with keeping the schools open.

If you are really interested in the history of education you will love reading Paul Monroe, Ph.D.'s book "A Text Book on the History of Education published in 1910 or James Mulhern's book "A History of Education" copyright in 1946 and 1959. — Athena

I prefer something a little more up-to-date. It's fine that both the Greeks and Americans taught their upper-class boys patriotism, citizenship and Hellenistic and Christian values respectively. Sometimes, in Athens and New England... All I'm saying is that the pink rear-view mirror does not show the whole landscape in its true colours. As for militarism, there were boys of 12 in the Civil War and 14-year-olds enlisted in WWI. That's one side-effect of patriotic fervour I consider unfortunate. Maybe I have a few issues with your characterization of all public education since 1958, but there is no point going into that here.
Suffice it to say, no slant on education could ever have been evenly applied to all states, and whatever way the curriculum was tweaked, it would not have altered the course of technological development.

Well I think it's a wonderful thing that mothers can now participate as true bread winners for the family, it must be incredibly empowering, almost on a par with the husband if not in some cases exceedingly so depending on their respective professions. But someone has to take care of the childers.
Its a fine balance indeed. I would personally be happy for a wife to succeed in her career while I raise the children. And I think that dynamic is increasing. A long awaited one. — Benj96

Whoo that was insulting! "true bread winners" :rage: Quick let me put on my philosopher's hat and see if I can deal with this like a reasonable person.

Exactly who do you think put food on the table in 1836? The woman was almost every industry needed to meet the family's needs. She likely made all the clothing, all the soaps for laundry and bathing, she of course washed those clothes, hung them on a line, and ironed them. She likely chopped her own wood for the cooking fire and if she was well informed she regulated the heat of her oven by using different woods. She planted and tended to the garden, harvested the food, and preserved it. Then she put the food on the table and people did not have the health concerns we have with processed foods. But speaking of health concerns, a well-informed woman knew the healing plants in her area and she took care of everyone, often without the help of a doctor. Everyone meaning not only her family and extended family but the sick and elderly people in the community as well. I considered my domestic skills were my contribution to the breadwinning and I enjoyed winning ribbons at the local fair :grin: and sitting on important decision-making committees.

The term "just a housewife" came up with women's liberation and it made me furious! I am not sure how we came to be so disrespected but it was in the air. At the same time, I was thinking other than providing a paycheck our husbands were rather useless because progress had also reduced the need for a man. We were no longer afraid of being attacked by Native Americans, and the only time I held a gun was to protect a friend from her abusive husband, so how did we get through this period of time with men having a hirer status than women?

Throughout history, women held things together when men went to war, and some of them were just as good on the battlefield. Today, I think it is clearly women who are advancing civilization and I think it was the grandmas who got us on the track of civilization.

Money is a part of life, but not the only thing of value.

I prefer something a little more up-to-date. It's fine that both the Greeks and Americans taught their upper-class boys patriotism, citizenship and Hellenistic and Christian values respectively. Sometimes, in Athens and New England... All I'm saying is that the pink rear-view mirror does not show the whole landscape in its true colours. As for militarism, there were boys of 12 in the Civil War and 14-year-olds enlisted in WWI. That's one side-effect of patriotic fervour I consider unfortunate. Maybe I have a few issues with your characterization of all public education since 1958, but there is no point going into that here.
Suffice it to say, no slant on education could ever have been evenly applied to all states, and whatever way the curriculum was tweaked, it would not have altered the course of technological development. — Vera Mont

You appear to have a very closed mind on this subject and I am afraid arguing with you will only make matters worse. I hope someday you are enlightened by the philosophy behind democracy and what education has to do with that.

Whoo that was insulting! "true bread winners" :rage: Quick let me put on my philosopher's hat and see if I can deal with this like a reasonable person. — Athena

Oh I'm sorry Athena! :( I didn't intend it as an insult, honestly. Perhaps I need to reconsider how I explain myself.

I meant bread winner in the purely capitalist capacity which doesn't consider bread winning to involve raising a family (which ofc it ought to). It only uses sums (of money) as the "bread" for which I spoke in this case.
As in generating income for the family unit. As we know it's very difficult to stay at home and raise children while also having a full time job. Working from home helps immensely ofc but isn't applicable to every job.

Time is limited and we cannot do everything at once sadly. We must delegate responsibility within and for a family.

She likely made all the clothing, all the soaps for laundry and bathing, she of course washed those clothes, hung them on a line, and ironed them. She likely chopped her own wood for the cooking fire and if she was well informed she regulated the heat of her oven by using different woods. She planted and tended to the garden, harvested the food, and preserved it. Then she put the food on the table and people did not have the health concerns we have with processed foods. But speaking of health concerns, a well-informed woman knew the healing plants in her area and she took care of everyone, often without the help of a doctor. Everyone meaning not only her family and extended family but the sick and elderly people in the community as well. I considered my domestic skills were my contribution to the breadwinning and I enjoyed winning ribbons at the local fair :grin: and sitting on important decision-making committees. — Athena

You're absolutely correct. I agree. I was referring to how modern society pits the bread against the home. Which is a terrible shame as bread is made at home too. Whoever holds down the Fort enables others to go beyond it to fetch additional resources knowing the home is not going to fall into disarray without them. Again i do apologise if it came across as sexist it was not what I meant so I'm doing my best to clarify the context on which I meant the description

Throughout history, women held things together when men went to war, and some of them were just as good on the battlefield. Today, I think it is clearly women who are advancing civilization and I think it was the grandmas who got us on the track of civilization.

Money is a part of life, but not the only thing of value. — Athena

Yes, quite right, and no better a portrayal of such then WW2 when it finally dawned on prospective employers that women were and always have been just as capable as men to assume roles in society beyond what was previous thought, beyond the pigeon hole patriarchy had placed women in: clerks, engineers, mechanics, construction workers and business etc - the list is as endless as the jobs it describes, and it was women who kept society running while men committed barbarian acts of aggression against one another on the war front.

So WW2 was a pivotal point for society in finally accepting that women are very much valuable assets to a society and not just merely "a housewife". Whatever that was meant to mean in the first place!?

But I suspect it meant subordination. :(

I hope i clarified well what I was describing. It was contextual to western societies persistent double standards.

I would never dare assume women as beneath men. Ever.

Oh I'm sorry Athena! :( I didn't intend it as an insult, honestly. Perhaps I need to reconsider how I explain myself.

I meant bread winner in the purely capitalist capacity which doesn't consider bread winning to involve raising a family (which ofc it ought to). It only uses sums (of money) as the "bread" for which I spoke in this case.
As in generating income for the family unit. As we know it's very difficult to stay at home and raise children while also having a full time job. Time is limited and we cannot do everything at once sadly. We must delegate responsibility for a family. — Benj96

No worry, I know you had no intention of offending and you get gold stars for your explanation of why you said what you did. :heart: Yes, it is today's capitalism that has our values really screwed up. But we should remember Adam Smith. He understood the importance of morality to economics and just assumed educated people would also be moral people and that it would be the educated people who ran the show.

By the time my second child was ready for kindergarten, I thought I was losing my mind and I absolutely had to get involved in the world outside of my home! I totally expected to complete my college education and have a career and help pay for children's educations. I found out too late I did not choose my husband as well as I thought I had. And so goes life. I will just leave this subject by saying someone needs to care for the children and there are sooo many good things a homemaker does, but we should not be limited to domestic responsibilities. Unfortunately, not all men are secure enough to allow their wives the freedom to actualize themselves outside of the home. At least that was so in the past. When men supported the family and women stayed home to care for them.

As you express the wisdom is not this or that, but this and that.

Benj96 — Benj96

Benj your input is essential to a better exchange of thought with @Vera Mont. Socrates was a poor man not one of the elite. People are not paid to think about how to raise human potential and yet we know of Socrates not many of the elites of Athens. Democracy is about education such as education for good moral judgment that Adams Smith assumed educated people would have and everyone becoming better human beings. This is not exactly a capitalist value.

You appear to have a very closed mind on this subject and I am afraid arguing with you will only make matters worse. — Athena

I have a different perspective, and use - as you have seen - different source material.
Matters won't get worse from argument; they won't get better from refusal to engage; odds are, they won't change at all. I'm open to any of those eventualities.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/socrates

His family apparently had the moderate wealth required to launch Socrates’ career as a hoplite (foot soldier). As an infantryman, Socrates showed great physical endurance and courage, rescuing the future Athenian leader Alcibiades during the siege of Potidaea in 432 B.C. 

He grew up during the golden age of Pericles’ Athens, served with distinction as a soldier, but became best known as a questioner of everything and everyone.

Socrates became the lone opponent of an illegal proposal to try a group of Athens’ top generals for failing to recover their dead from a battle against Sparta (the generals were executed once Socrates’ assembly service ended). Three years later, when a tyrannical Athenian government ordered Socrates to participate in the arrest and execution of Leon of Salamis, he refused—an act of civil disobedience that Martin Luther King Jr. would cite in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

The tyrants were forced from power before they could punish Socrates, but in 399 he was indicted for failing to honor the Athenian gods and for corrupting the young. Although some historians suggest that there may have been political machinations behind the trial, he was condemned on the basis of his thought and teaching.

You're absolutely correct. I agree. I was referring to how modern society pits the bread against the home. Which is a terrible shame as bread is made at home too. Whoever holds down the Fort enables others to go beyond it to fetch additional resources knowing the home is not going to fall into disarray without them. Again i do apologise if it came across as sexist it was not what I meant so I'm doing my best to clarify the context on which I meant the description — Benj96

Ah, now I love you. :heart: And thank you for leaving the argument against women staying home to care for the family to me.

When my children were teenagers during the 1970 recession, Dad walked out leaving me to take care of the home and support the family. I would have loved to have had a wife! It would have been wonderful to be able to focus on my job and how to maneuver into a career instead of trying to do it all. I would have loved to come home to a clean house and a meal and have someone else to resolve all the problems young people have. Old books advised women about taking care of everything so the man would be free to focus on his business or career.

When I was a member of the Cicero Society, I watched the older men coach a young man to assure his success. These men had wives who never left the home and their wives were like helpless children when it came to knowledge of the greater world. Fortunately for their wives, these men had stocks and their wives were well taken of when they died but I would not want to be one of them.

I have known older women who absolutely hated their husbands and were very thankful when their controlling and possibly abusive husbands dies. I have read a journalist's record of pioneer women who were passionate about the injustice they suffered when we went to war because of slavery but did nothing about the slavery they endured because we called their slavery marriage. Some of them could have been married off at age 14 to an older man who wanted someone to do his laundry and cook for him, and back in the day rape and abuse of a wife were sanctioned by law.

I was raised by a divorced mother and when I say women have the freedom of barbarians, I do not mean that as a good thing, because they can be forced by circumstances to work for very low wages and deal with all the problems of poverty when raising their children. Today that means more of them are homeless with their children and the assistance programs can not take care of all of them even though the lucky few needing help can receive much more assistance than in the past.

Something I regret about philosophy is the lack of women's voices. Many philosophers dealt with the education of children, but the mothers' perspective is missing. I think I have more words and experiences to say what is wrong with being a full-time homemaker than I have for the Dick and Jane or Leave it to Beaver models of the good family life.

I am struggling here, I do not know how to philosophically express the injustice of patriarchy and the value of matriarchy. The injustice of autocracy and the value of democracy. And thank you for throwing me into this quandary by leaving me the argument against the ideal.

:lol: And now I must rush out and buy the rest of the Thanksgiving Dinner that I must make for the helpless men in my life. No matter how hard we try, it seems nothing is that easy to explain with absolute certainty. :chin:

Some of them could have been married off at age 14 to an older man who wanted someone to do his laundry and cook for him, and back in the day rape and abuse of a wife were sanctioned by law. — Athena

Gross patriarchy and gender inequality at its finest :(

am struggling here, I do not know how to philosophically express the injustice of patriarchy and the value of matriarchy. — Athena

Oh I disagree. I think you're doing a very good job of explaining your qualms to the forum contributors. Philosophy is for everyone, it's a discussion, the minute we think it is a speciality, elite subject or something that requires some certificate or qualification then true organic philosophy does on that table.

And thank you for throwing me into this quandary by leaving me the argument against the ideal. — Athena

"An" ideal to be sure. Nobody knows exactly what ought to be the true ideal to pursue. Hence the existence of such forums no? To explore eachothers thoughts, experiences and personal input into the great argument so that we may gather the facts, beliefs and interactions neccesary to hopefully see the wood from the trees.

Yes and certainty is a very difficult thing to capture. Just when one things they have ultimate certainty someone throws a wrench in the cogs and we are left to consider the exceptions to such a case. I hope thanksgiving goes well for you and your family. Have a great celebration :)

The tyrants were forced from power before they could punish Socrates, but in 399 he was indicted for failing to honor the Athenian gods and for corrupting the young. Although some historians suggest that there may have been political machinations behind the trial, he was condemned on the basis of his thought and teaching.

So what is your point? Socrates' father was a sculptor and Socrates followed his father's profession. Having to work for a living is not as good as being wealthy because of owning property. As a sculptor, Socrates faced hazards to his health and the problem would have increased with age. Socrates could have avoided death, but I think his ego and old age problems saw his immortality rested in being put to death. Had he been a younger man, I think he would have chosen to save his life rather than his ego.

His trial was about being an offensive person, and his punishment was up to arbitration. He was voted guilty by a very narrow margin, but his suggestion that he be treated like a hero instead of punished resulted in increasing the number of people who voted against him in favor of the death penalty. I think his ego got the best of him, but that is what made him famous. Had he been less annoying, we may never have heard about him. The young would not have admired him. Sort of like Trump, he thrived on everyone talking about him and his act of defiance turned people against him.

It is said his philosophy career was begun by a desire to prove the oracles wrong. Perhaps that annoyed the gods who then used men to end Socrates' life. That is not a serious statement, but I think Socrates was foolish at the moment and I don't think he cared if he died because old age is not nice to us.

This thread is about how technology changes our lives, and it was political technology that was changing the lives of Athenians. In the past, Socrates' would have been judged by the Oligarchy, but in Pericles' democracy, it is likely the majority of those who judged Socrates were farmers who would have stronger feelings about people knowing their place and staying in it, being conservative instead of a progressive out to change things, and even worse, acting as though he was entitled to the honor given a hero!

Whatever, I have totally enjoyed looking for more information and coming to new conclusions.

Oh I disagree. I think you're doing a very good job of explaining your qualms to the forum contributors. Philosophy is for everyone, it's a discussion, the minute we think it is a speciality, elite subject or something that requires some certificate or qualification then true organic philosophy does on that table.

And thank you for throwing me into this quandary by leaving me the argument against the ideal.
— Athena

"An" ideal to be sure. Nobody knows exactly what ought to be the true ideal to pursue. Hence the existence of such forums no? To explore eachothers thoughts, experiences and personal input into the great argument so that we may gather the facts, beliefs and interactions neccesary to hopefully see the wood from the trees.

Yes and certainty is a very difficult thing to capture. Just when one things they have ultimate certainty someone throws a wrench in the cogs and we are left to consider the exceptions to such a case. I hope thanksgiving goes well for you and your family. Have a great celebration :) — Benj96

I just criticized Socrates for being defiant and foolish when his life was on the line, but being defiant can make a person deserving of being treated like a hero. You are so gracious to say we all need to be heard in our struggle to know truth and I certainly believe that is true of hearing the woman's voice. I think Socrates pushed for that and that we may owe him that daily meal given to heroes. I have always thought he stood for freedom of speech in the goal to know truth and he gave his life for that.

However, I am not sure if Socrates' and Plato's relationships with women were something I could value? This ties in directly with the women's liberation we have had, which to me, is more oppressive of the feminine element than what we had. I loved the Hippy period that raised our consciousness of the Gia, Earth, Mother goddess. My life and my children's lives would have been totally different if my husband at the time had also been caught up in that cohort's fascination with love and peace and valuing the mother as I did. Women being anything else may be masculine, not feminine? However, I did hear a leading woman in the space program use domestic terms to explain what is important about our space program. That is, just because a woman does what men do, she does not have to think totally as a man does but to be competitive she needs to think as men think. Plato's republic and the city being everyone's parent, while those in power are not organized by families, scares me because I think that is the path to tyranny.

I could be so wrong but I fear men bring us to tyranny and on the other hand women may retard technological progress? Those nations that advanced technology were patriarchies and I do not know of any matriarchy that advanced technology?

However, now I think of how age changes us. I wanted to be devoted to family but as my children aged and I aged, I wanted to be more active in the community, and like many women in my cohort, we thought we would return to college and have careers when the children were old enough. To our horror, our husbands were not supportive of that. Later in life, I regret I did not embrace math and science when I was young. But I also think my human experience would not have been complete without going through the mother stage. What do I mean by a human experience? A well-rounded emotional trip with changing relationships as we all age and in time become our parent's caregivers. I have concerns that technology and materialism are disconnecting us from the human experience? And maybe that concern is more on topic.

I have a different perspective, and use - as you have seen - different source material.
Matters won't get worse from argument; they won't get better from refusal to engage; odds are, they won't change at all. I'm open to any of those eventualities. — Vera Mont

Yes, you have a different perspective and think it is the perspective of your cohort which is different from the perspective my cohort, A cohort being a period of history that shapes our consciousness. You remind me of the introduction to a very old textbook that explains people in a democracy can be very critical of democracy and then the book goes on to explain democracy and how our criticism is about resolving problems, not a desire to destroy our democracy and replace it with something else. I am just not sure your cohort has the rest of the explanation of democracy.

You sure do not know the military might we have today is not what we had in the past. We did not always feel responsible for supporting democracy around the world and we were very resistant to giving tax dollars to the military. When Eisenhower first served the Defense Department, his wages were so low he rode the bus to work.

Joseph Campbell said mythology is about teaching the young how to be good citizens and that we need to share a mythology for psychological, social, and political reasons. The US created its own mythology and passed it on to its young until 1958. Then education for technology destroyed that mythology and the national heroes that went with it. Technology has drastically changed the benefits of those serving in the military.

Joseph Campbell said Star Trek is the closest thing we have to a helpful mythology. The social organization of Star Trek is more like Plato's Republic than the family of gods and the mythology of the gods, which did organize Athens when Socrates was poking holes into what people believed.

You and I disagreed about the changing role of technology and war, and I want to point out that the Greeks and Romans both had war gods, but they had different ideas about the good or bad of a war god. The Greeks spread a culture that has endured. The Romans spread an empire that fell. We might admire Roman accomplishments, but the Romans depended on Athens for their technology, like the Borg takes technology. The US is becoming like the Borg but in the past, it did stand for God, family, and Country. Forgetting what we stood for means we have fought every war for nothing.

Socrates' father was a sculptor and Socrates followed his father's profession. — Athena

Says stonemason in that biography, and Socrates definitely joined the army. Served with distinction.

Whatever, I have totally enjoyed looking for more information and coming to new conclusions. — Athena

Good. The fabled Athenians, Pericles' vaunted Athens, engaged in war, international trade, slavery, patriarchy, money-lending, Saturday night pub brawls, political infighting and hypocrisy with as much gusto as every other nation-state on the face of the Earth. So did the fabled young American Republic. When you idealize a shining moment as if it were a sustained condition, you fail to see the grubby century in which it was a moment of importance.

This thread is about how technology changes our lives, and it was political technology that was changing the lives of Athenians. — Athena

Technology, as well as the sequelae of the great depression, as well as the economic push and psychological imprint of WWII and the consequent geopolitical reconfiguration of the world, changed the lives of not only Americans, but just about everyone. And it's kept on changing ever since. And it's not going to be reset to 1957 or 1927 or 1867 or 447BCE.

The Romans spread an empire that fell. — Athena

All past empires fell, were conquered or dissolved. They have a natural life-span, just like mayflies, redwoods and humans.

The Greeks spread a culture that has endured. The Romans spread an empire that fell.

See the bias? The Greeks also had an empire - a big one - that fell. And the Romans also left behind a sizeable cultural legacy. Plus some amazing roads. Why cherry-pick? They were both admirable and abominable.

Good. The fabled Athenians, Pericles' vaunted Athens, engaged in war, international trade, slavery, patriarchy, money-lending, Saturday night pub brawls, political infighting and hypocrisy with as much gusto as every other nation-state on the face of the Earth. So did the fabled young American Republic. When you idealize a shining moment as if it were a sustained condition, you fail to see the grubby century in which it was a moment of importance. — Vera Mont

We have come a long way. I speak against the 1958 National Defense Education Act, but the shift to a focus on technology did increase equality. Women gained rights that western culture never before gave them. People of color are more protected by the law than they ever have been and we have extended this protection to people who are homosexual or fall in different places in the gender spectrum. In Oregon, everyone is fed and we are going for providing medical care for everyone as well. Instead of arresting homeless people and driving them away, we are making serious efforts to shelter everyone. Before these efforts to be better human beings, we educated everyone, and with vocational training in 1917 that meant the masses had far more opportunities for upward economic mobility than ever before. These are the result of technology and also the result of democracy and the notion that education can improve the human and the improved humans can lead to an improved society, lifting the human potential.

Pointing to what you believe are faults, seems to blind you and those who have the same perspective, from seeing the good of our democracy and the hope of the future that democracy will continue to lift the human potential. I see huge improvement in how we live and this is the result of the characteristics of democracy being taught. At the same time, I see social chaos and mass murders, and the development of a police state, that is what we defended our democracy against. I say this unfortunate turn is also the result of education for a technological society with unknown values, and intensionally ending the transmission of our culture to our children through our education system. This is a conflict between Christians and secular people and a battle for a national future between those who have faith in humans and those who do not.

Fortunately, we have this forum and the opportunity to examine what is and what can be.

I say this unfortunate turn is also the result of education for a technological society with unknown values, and intensionally ending the transmission of our culture to our children through our education system. — Athena

No, it's a result of all the history that went before, of the condition of the world today and of the general craziness of our race. Education has a little part in what happens in the big world; it's not pivotal.

This is a conflict between Christians and secular people and a battle for a national future between those who have faith in humans and those who do not. — Athena

A lot of people - millions - who call themselves Christian align with the darkest forces of history, from the persecution and eradication of heretics, through the Crusades and the devastation of the Americas and the wholesale kidnapping and importation of African people as if they were no more than bales of cotton or any other trade goods, to the current farce of Trumpery. There are no christian values. There are good values and bad ones. Any name - any name! - can be put in the service of either.

The Greeks also had an empire - a big one - that fell. And the Romans also left behind a sizeable cultural legacy. Plus some amazing roads. Why cherry-pick? They were both admirable and abominable. — Vera Mont

After you check out this link we can discuss why the Greek city-states were not an empire equal to the Roman empire. https://www.britannica.com/topic/city-state . Surely this difference and the history weighed heavily on Lincoln's mind when he determined to enter a war to save the union. Ever since the civil war, the federal government has become more and more powerful, diminishing the power of sovereign states. I am not sure this movement toward a military empire like Rome is desirable. Nor am I sure it is not desirable. But I think the glory of Rome is not exactly what the United States set out to manifest.

What the Greeks had was more like what the Iroquois had than an empire like Rome.

The Iroquois (/ˈɪrəkwɔɪ/ or /ˈɪrəkwɑː/), officially the Haudenosaunee (/ˌhoʊdinoʊˈʃoʊniː/[3][4] meaning "people of the longhouse"), are an Iroquoian-speaking confederacy of First Nations peoples in northeast North America/Turtle Island. They were known during the colonial years to the French as the Iroquois League, and later as the Iroquois Confederacy. The English called them the Five Nations, comprising the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca (listed geographically from east to west). After 1722, the Iroquoian-speaking Tuscarora people from the southeast were accepted into the confederacy, which became known as the Six Nations. — Wikipedia

I think what the colonist had in mind was a confederation of sovereign states. For darn sure not all states are pleased with the laws and influence the federal government is imposing on them.

No, it's a result of all the history that went before, of the condition of the world today and of the general craziness of our race. Education has a little part in what happens in the big world; it's not pivotal. — Vera Mont

You and I strongly disagree on this point. Throughout history, nothing has been more powerful than education. That education may be Homer or the Bible or the classics of Schalsticiam, or intentionally transmitting a secular culture for democracy and liberty coming out of the Age of Enlightenment, or the education can be focused on technology for military and industrial purposes as was so for Prussian-led Germany. Whatever the purpose of education that is what a nation will manifest.

Or to quote John Dewey "If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct." This was so since the earliest civilization but back in the day, it was stories of the gods that manifested the various cultures. Greeks moved away from that and Christians brought us back to education for a culture.

In all the Greek city-states, except for Sparta, the purpose of education was to produce good citizens. Children were trained in music, art, literature, science, math, and politics. — mrdonn

Homer and the stories of the gods were essential reading like the Bible is essential to Christians.

In Rome, Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places of learning. That threw the West into the Dark Age, leaving only Christianity to provide an education and guilds that taught a trade. While in the East, ongoing learning gave Islam a golden age of growth and prosperity.

I want to point out the argument about education and the Greeks having city-states not an empire, are the same argument. This is about power and authority and liberty or the lack of all three.

With that said, is it ethical for technological automation top be stunted, in order to preserve jobs (or a healthy job marketplace)? — Bret Bernhoft

I think this is a capitalism issue. I don't think people are fussed about jobs, they are fussed about having no work and bad pay. Stunting technology won't solve anything, so I voted no.

I also like @Pantagruel's answer. Gets right to the point and succinctly.

Speaking for myself, machines & humans can be symbiotically integrated (cyborgs) for, well, mutual benefit. It doesn't have to be a competitive, our relationship, it can be cooperative.

After you check out this link we can discuss why the Greek city-states were not an empire equal to the Roman empire. — Athena

You choose to limit it to the city states, and exclude Alexander? Okay, then you have to restrict the Roman one to the first Republic. https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Republic
No prizes for cherries!

Ever since the civil war, the federal government has become more and more powerful, diminishing the power of sovereign states. — Athena

The red state legislatures would be the first to agree with you. The Republican-packed Supreme Court is second. I'll be among the last.

But I think the glory of Rome is not exactly what the United States set out to manifest. — Athena

What it set out to do, what it has done and what it is doing are not necessarily all of a piece. But it is a fact: done and cannot be undone.

Throughout history, nothing has been more powerful than education. — Athena

Except religion, nationalism, ambition, greed, paranoia and pride. The chiefest among these is greed, most especially greed for territory - more land! their land! and all the black and gold stuff stuff under it! It's all for us.

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct." — Athena

Just so. And where do these ideals of education originate? In the nation's self-image and aspiration. The horse goes first; the cart follows.

In Rome, Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places of learning. That threw the West into the Dark Age, — Athena

No, that got the christians thrown into Roman prisons. Much later, Constantine imposed Christianity - or some Romanized form thereof - onto Europe. That still didn't bring on the dark age. The dissolution of the Roman empire did.

Speaking for myself, machines & humans can be symbiotically integrated (cyborgs) for, well, mutual benefit. — Agent Smith

...Bannakaffalatta? Is that really you?

You choose to limit it to the city states, and exclude Alexander? — Vera Mont

Yes. Alexander was not representative of Athens and the city-states around Athens.

Throughout history, nothing has been more powerful than education.
— Athena

Except religion, nationalism, ambition, greed, paranoia and pride. The chiefest among these is greed, most especially greed for territory - more land! their land! and all the black and gold stuff stuff under it! It's all for us. — Vera Mont

I count religion as education and I see all beliefs in the gods as religion. It is what Athens defended when they killed Socrates and what Rome defended when it persecuted Christians and later what Christians defended when they destroyed the pagan temples. Mythology is essential to large unites of humans and it is transmitted from generation to generation. That is education.

I don't know if nationalism was part of education. That just doesn't sit right with me. I believe people had a sense of us and them, but I would not call that learned nationalism. How do you think nationalism was taught? Ambition, greed, and paranoia are taught? How does that work? That sure was not being taught in the old-school books I have, however, I do see those problems as an unintended consequence of the 1958 change in education.

Just so. And where do these ideals of education originate? — Vera Mont

Did you miss the explanation that education comes from philosophy? Maybe we should go back and cover that more carefully?

No, that got the christians thrown into Roman prisons. Much later, Constantine imposed Christianity - or some Romanized form thereof - onto Europe. That still didn't bring on the dark age. The dissolution of the Roman empire did. — Vera Mont

I don't think you're chronology is correct. Christians did not attack anyone until after Constantine legitimaized their religion and then they started killing each other because Romans lacked a word to express the concept of a god having 3 aspects, so worshipping the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was seen as worshipping 3 gods, not 1 god. This subject is so important perhaps we should tackle it separately. It looks like my thread about how the Greeks and Romans were different must be in a history forum, not this one. We have a couple of disagreements because of not recognize the important differences between Athens and Rome. I will gladly open a thread for examining the differences between the Greeks and the Romans.

Yes, the Roman Christians did bring on the Dark Age. This will become more obvious when examing the differences between Athens and Rome. Did you know Greek Jews wrote the first Bible and they had very different words and concepts than the Romans? Jesus is the word, or logos, is a Greek concept and it goes with seeking universal truth. Christianity is Hellenized Judaism. Rome's quest for power and glory was a different thing. Constantine was interested in winning wars and he saw Christianity as helpful to that goal. He also moved his empire east where gold was more accessible and trade routes were better. He needed military strength to do that. That had nothing to do with the Greek Jew's acceptance of Jesus as the word. Rome was not the intellectual leader that Athens was and Athens was not an empire.