I supported Womens' Lib and that resulted in me becoming "Mr. Mom" - a single parent - for a while. But life moved on in unexpected but welcome ways. — jgill

I am not sure the male experience of being Mom is the same as the female experience. That would be really hard because when women stayed home they visited each other and supported each other, and a male didn't have that kind of support. I would like to hear from both of you what it felt like to be Mom. My son also became a single parent.

I want to fall back on Confucious and the notion that strong families make the nation strong. This is another way of thinking about the opening question. "Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things?"

What do you think is inside us that we need to be aware of? — Athena

As I see it, it is more of a question of the particular person. It is connected to the Socratic claim about the examined life. What I need to be aware of may not be what you need to be aware of.

I feel pretty strongly that most of what has benefitted me has come from the outside, not the inside. — Athena

Suppose two people grew up in the controlled environment where everything that happens to one happens to the other. In one sense their experience would be the same, but because they are different people I think their experience would be different in significant ways. Experience is not simply what happens to us, but how we react and respond.

Not all cultures emphasize the individual. — Athena

True. The most important consequence of modern liberalism, for better and for worse, might be to reorient us around the individual. Some take this so far that they reject the notion of a common good. For them the rights of the individual stands at the center.

This is a moment to surprise. I thought I knew what I thought but I am not at all sure I do know what I think. — Athena

From a young age I rejected the idea that we should start writing with an outline. For me writing is a way of thinking.

Is this so? Any thoughts? — dani

Speaking only to the earlier portion, as i'm actually not too up the relationship between Libertarianism and other identitarian pursuits:|

Huh. My experience of basically the entirety of deconstructionist thought has been that it replaces the individual per se with the individual qua group /membership/s and in varying proportions.

This seems to actually be borne out in the what they 'think is right'. Broadly speaking, it tends to be large-scale either action or reaction in the spirit of some or other group usually with legislative change in mind - I recognize that there's obviously an individual effort involved for each person pertaining to the group to which they belong and are, at any time, acting in light of, but the defining feature of that action or decision's significance in terms of its socio-political nature seems the motivating factor. There's no motivation for an individual to become 'liberated'.

What's the weird slogan being thrown around? No freedom til were all free or something or other.

Thanks for your reply, yes, I agree with you! I think our points are compatible.

While a deconstructionist may have 'the group' in mind, it is still an individualized group that follows 'what they think is right,' as you put it. And while there's no motivation for an individual to become liberated, there's no push-back against having one individual represent the group.

I think I might be giving myself too much leeway with the term 'individual,' though.
What I'm saying isn't that there's more focus on each individual, in deconstructionist movements, but that there is more importance given to individualization. So that would be why I always associated those movements with the Enlightenment... Another reason could be the 'deconstruction' of a higher force (God, religion, etc) which accompanied the Enlightenment and colors the deconstructionist movements, imo :chin:

Which ties back into 143 from the Joyful wisdom with creating your own ideal, and the greatest utility of polytheism, a warrior fights for their ideal due to it being the transfiguring and redeeming aspect that lifts them out of the abyss of nihilism. — Vaskane

Dear Vaskane, you push me to seek knowledge that pleases me in every way. I am quite sure the Greeks were familiar with Egyptian gods and modeled their own gods after the Egyptian gods. I also believe the Sumerian gods and stories influenced the consciousness of the whole region. The Greek story of Pandora and the box paralleling the story of Adam and Eve which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of the creation of man. But I like the Greek version much better. Anyway- I found a delightful explanation of the Egyptian and Greek gods. https://philarchive.org/archive/MULTGO-13#:~:text=He%20remarks%3A%20'In%20Egyptian%2C,by%20the%20ancient%20Egyptian%20myths.

Gods were forces of nature and they balanced each other. Especially the Egyptians and Aztecs had powerful rulers whose duty was to keep chaos at bay and math was very important to their sense of order. I would like to have a better understanding of the gods as nature gods but that deviates from discussion in this thread. I love just about everything said in the link and chose this paragraph because it addresses what we are talking about here. Before this paragraph more is said of Greeks adopting the Egyptian gods.

The existence of Ma’at in Egyptian society and its myths in the meaning of both the
pharaonic and individual adherence to rules and principles to keep on the right path
reveals that most Egyptians did have a good understanding of just and unjust social
behaviour. In terms of consciousness, this implies that Egyptians were self-reflexive;
they were moral human beings capable of reflecting upon their own behaviour over a
period of time. This assertion is supported by the Italian neuroscientologist Antonio
Damasio’s theory of consciousness. In ‘The feeling of what happens’ (2000), Damasio
makes a distinction between three cumulative forms of human consciousness: 1. the
protoself: a person’s bodily state, which is the most basic representation of self. 2. The
core self: the awareness of the biological bodily state and emotions in the here and
now, which is a more evolved form of consciousness. 3. The autobiographical self: a
person’s reflection on the awareness of emotions over a longer period of time. The
autobiographical self is the third layer and most evolved form of consciousness. It
draws on memory and past experiences which involve the use of higher thought
processes. It requires a person to have a language, an autobiographical memory
capacity, and reasoning ability. Damasio believes that the autobiographical self is a
necessary condition for both rational and mythological thinking. Therefore, to his mind,
mythological thinking does not belong to a lower form of consciousness. Damasio
stresses that myths are not the product of the core self but, similar to rational thinking,
are the result of self-reflexive thoughts of the autobiographical self, which is both an
individual and a group member. An adult constructs this self with its experiences,
ideas, images, evaluations, likes, dislikes, achievements and failures. Although the
autobiographical self is unique to a person, he or she shares narratives with members
of the same peer group, community, or culture. This means that besides using our own
experiences, we include the experiences, ideologies and beliefs we inherit from
(deceased) members of our cultures, which makes us part of the larger narratives of
mankind. The autobiographical or self-reflexive self is thus the result of mythological
and logical individual thoughts of a person, whose consciousness is at the same time
constructed by and part of the collective consciousness of humanity as a whole
(Damasio 2000). — Multgo-13

As I see it, it is more of a question of the particular person. It is connected to the Socratic claim about the examined life. What I need to be aware of may not be what you need to be aware of. — Fooloso4

I am very excited by the link I used in the reply to Vaskane because I think it is an excellent explanation of our concept of the self and the importance of being self-reflective. It certainly compliments what you have said.

quote="Fooloso4;858585"]Suppose two people grew up in the controlled environment where everything that happens to one happens to the other. In one sense their experience would be the same, but because they are different people I think their experience would be different in significant ways. Experience is not simply what happens to us, but how we react and respond.[/quote]

Absolutely true. Two people can sit side by side and watch the sunset and both will have a different experience of the sunset. My worst fights with my sister resulted from us having shared/different experiences, like Israel and Palestine have totally different stories about their shared history.

True. The most important consequence of modern liberalism, for better and for worse, might be to reorient us around the individual. Some take this so far that they reject the notion of a common good. For them the rights of the individual stands at the center. — Fooloso4

I think that was a very powerful statement. I need to chew on it for a while. It goes very well with this thread but adds more depth to the thought. You have taken a snapshot of a concept and put it in motion and I would like Hegel to jump in here and give us his take on this exchange of thought. I think we have leaped back and forth from individualism to a united force (times of war) and back to individualism, with this moment in time possibly being the most individualistic of all times. But this also puts pressure on government to enforce some kind of social order and do much more to meet individual needs.

From a young age I rejected the idea that we should start writing with an outline. For me writing is a way of thinking. — Fooloso4

Oh absolutely! No wonder we are disagreeing and getting along. We both experience thinking as an ongoing process that can lead to unexpected insights.

And while there's no motivation for an individual to become liberated, — dani

Socrates saw education as what liberates the people chained to the cave. Liberal education is about being liberated and capable of being self-governing.

All groups of people share agreements that are essential to the integrity of the group and your post is important to my effort to better understand how this group/individual thing works. We can not tolerate individuals picking weapons and committing mass murder. How do we have both, individuality and social order?

I am very excited by the link I used ... — Athena

A few quick comments.

From the second section on consciousness I am reminded of Dewey on the meaning of conscience (con - with, science -knowledge) to be, with the knowledge of others. What one would do if others were aware of what we are doing.

Plato makes great use of mythos, both existing mythos and those he creates. There is a logos to mythos. Although we typically think of logos as reason and logic, its range of meaning is much greater. Etymologically its root meaning is to collect or gather. In the dialogues, however, an appeal to mythos often occurs when argument fails.

In addition to the opposition between logos and mythos, there is the related opposition between philosophy and poetry. In this opposition too there is unity. Philosophical poiesis.

... a plagiarized Sumerian story of the creation of man. — Athena

Certainly stories from one culture became part of those of other cultures, but I do not think we should think of it as plagiarism. It is, rather, closer to what happens in fashion style.

I thought you wanted to know more about the virtues of a warrior.

The warrior's virtue is the ideal they fight for that gives them purpose beyond themselves, beyond the abyss that war leaves man engulfed within.

143 from Joyful wisdom isn't saying "Gods are literally made this way," it's showing the basis for Polytheism is that Deities are individuals who champion ideals. Much like a warrior who champions ideals.

The easiest way to defeat warriors and Gods is to remove/replace the ideal in which they fight/stand for. — Vaskane

Is there a site address for the information you shared, or a book title? I think I want that information but the print is too small for me to read it. I tried increasing the size of the print and that made it blurry. I like books better than reading a screen.

Last night the public broadcasting channel did a show about how many places contributed to the process of going from superstition in creation stories to science. I think the information available to us today is a whole lot different from the past. This gives me a lot of hope.

About the warrior's virtues, I do not want to argue against what you said, but I want to expand upon it. I think we all do better if we have a sense that our lives have meaning and purpose. The missionary is devoted to spreading religion. Those who got democracy going were devoted to creating a new social order that they believed would better serve humanity but their resources were limited.

I like what you said of Joyful wisdom. The Capitol Building of the US has a mural of the gods they thought best served democracy. Our Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice, and Spirit of America as she is depicted in the mural, are the three aspects of Athena, the goddess of Liberty and Justice and Protector of those who stand for liberty and justice. All these images contain a sword. From here come the words "The pen is mightier than the sword". And this reasoning is about all of us having political power and responsibility. That is what makes the New Social Order so important. Together we can do more for the human potential than a god or king.

In my reading about the importance of being a warrior, it begins with physical fitness and for sure the ancient people thought that very important! There is a strong psychological impact to being physically fit. When our bodies give us feedback of strength that will lead to psychological strength as well, and now add knowledge of the virtues and understanding them to be strengths, and we get strong character committed to doing the good. Imagine how powerful a nation could be if everyone is prepared to be physically and mentally strong. That is what made us great, not war and weapons of war, and not putting ourselves first. Wow, a nation of obese people eating junk food and avoiding physical and mental activity can not be a world leader.

I can appreciate a focus on warrior virtues if includes a way of life that does not depend on war.

From the second section on consciousness I am reminded of Dewey on the meaning of conscience (con - with, science -knowledge) to be, with the knowledge of others. What one would do if others were aware of what we are doing. — Fooloso4

OMG you excited me again! How do you come to know Dewey? :cry: Those are tears of joy. Yes, if we look at an old Webster dictionary that provides the root of words, "conscience" is [con] coming out of science and that is tied to the democratic search for truth. Now we are back to Socrates and the search for truth, to know what is real and what is not and what is good and what is not. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. This is something we can know through science. :heart: Thank you

Plato makes great use of mythos, both existing mythos and those he creates. There is a logos to mythos. Although we typically think of logos as reason and logic, its range of meaning is much greater. Etymologically its root meaning is to collect or gather. In the dialogues, however, an appeal to mythos often occurs when argument fails. — Fooloso4

Absolutely- sometimes poetry expresses a truth better than facts. We need to be sensitive to the fact that knowing facts without understanding their meaning is not that helpful. This is my concern with education for technology, especially when we went through a period of not teaching concepts and logic. A person with a high IQ can remember many facts and that is not equal to understanding concepts. Each god and goddess is a concept. They are not physically real, but as concepts, they represent a truth.

Certainly stories from one culture became part of those of other cultures, but I do not think we should think of it as plagiarism. It is, rather, closer to what happens in fashion style. — Fooloso4

Our understanding of reality might be totally different if the Hebrews who left Ur, had acknowledged the Sumerian contribution to their story of creation and the story of the flood. Just for fun, I like to consider that the story of a flood and Eden was based on actual events that got forgotten, turning an accurate account of what happened into a myth disconnected from the events. Archeologists may correct this problem.

Christians would not be happy to know several biblical stories came from Sumerian archives, not God Himself and I think truth is vital to everything. Living with a god who has favorite people and who gives these people permission to wipe out people occupying the land they want, and enslaving people and believing God is good with them treating them differently than we would be treated, continues to be a problem. While myths can contain truth, myths can also contain harmful lies. This is a problem Socrates knows well. :roll:

sometimes poetry expresses a truth better than facts. — Athena

Aristotle said that poetry is more philosophical and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general or universal truths while history gives particular facts. The poet is a "maker of stories" (Poetics, 145b)

Our understanding of reality might be totally different if the Hebrews who left Ur, had acknowledged the Sumerian contribution to their story of creation and the story of the flood. — Athena

Ours perhaps, but the question of authorship has a long and ancient history. Storytellers often credit gods and muses for the stories they tell. Some still regard the Bible as the word of God. Pseudonymous writing was an accepted practice and not regarded as deceit.

You might find the book "God: An Anatomy" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
interesting. It deals with how the stories and concepts of what comes to be the god(s) of the Bible develop from one culture to another. As the title indicates, the focus is on gods as physical beings.

You might find the book "God: An Anatomy" by Francesca Stavrakopoulou
interesting. It deals with how the stories and concepts of what comes to be the god(s) of the Bible develop from one culture to another. As the title indicates, the focus is on gods as physical beings. — Fooloso4

That looks interesting. I looked for information about the book and that led to looking at other books. At the moment I think I would like an audiobook titled "Creating Christ How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity" best. I have wanted to know more about that for many years.

That explanation kind of goes with the subject of this thread about what makes a nation great. Obviously, the US has imitated both Athens and Rome. I think we agree it is both strong leaders and the led working together that make a nation great and Rome achieved that but eventually fell. I think there are vital factors that may or may not be in the people's control such as rapid growth and not being able to find enough gold to sustain the value of coins. Essential people must be able to meet their needs and keep their children alive. That means securing a supply of clean water, sanitation, food, and a stable economy. Essential is the organization of leadership and the social organization.

I think this thread may have died and I do not know if we can go any further in an exploration of greatness? However, another exciting piece of this puzzle is the role gods have played in shaping civilizations, our evolution, and our present consciousness. Do you have any thoughts about how that subject applies to great nations? Bill Graham embedded himself with Presidents and that increased his power and the power of the men who were presidents. And of course, that power is the mass of people that followed the leaders.

I think this thread may have died and I do not know if we can go any further in an exploration of greatness? However, another exciting piece of this puzzle is the role gods have played in shaping civilizations, our evolution, and our present consciousness. Do you have any thoughts about how that subject applies to great nations? — Athena

In the section "The Parable of the Madman" from Zarathustra our old friend (enemy?) Nietzsche asks:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? ... Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

I am sorry I just can not relate to Nietzsche. Simply to be worthy of what? What is "it"?

The Greek gods were nothing like the God of Abraham so what does it mean to become gods? :confused:

for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.

Zeus feared once man had the technology of fire he would learn all the other technologies and rival the gods. I think Zeus was correct and I think this has led to serious problems. The moral is, that we need the gods.

I hope you can give good arguments and also I hope you see why I am having a hard time relating to Nietzsche. I think a person's brain must be pickled in Christianity to appreciate what Nietzche is saying. I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought. Their minds don't immediately jump to the Greek gods like my mind does. Gods that are limited and like humans don't well with Neitsche's argument.

Each god is a concept and these concepts are important to us. May Appolo help us bridge our differences and find agreement. :grin: :heart:

Simply to be worthy of what? What is "it"? — Athena

Living without a god. Living without something higher. Plato does this with the idea of the good.

The Greek gods were nothing like the God of Abraham so what does it mean to become gods? — Athena

That is something Nietzsche asks us to consider. His inversion of Dionysus gives us some idea of what is at issue:

I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers.

— Beyond Good and Evil, 295

Both the God of Abraham and the Greek gods were willful gods. They were not lovers of wisdom in the sense of desiring and pursuing knowledge and wisdom. Through the influence of the Greek philosophers God becomes omniscient. Man is taught not to question. But a god who questions does not forbid man to question.

The moral is, that we need the gods. — Athena

But if we have killed God then what? What will replace them? Where can we find direction and guidance?

I think a person's brain must be pickled in Christianity to appreciate what Nietzche is saying. — Athena

I think it must be just the opposite. A person must overcome the burden Christianity has imposed on us. We must question rather than obey the tablets of "thou shall nots". See the chapter "The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" in Zarathustra.

I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought. — Athena

Yes, this frame of reference is important. To be like a god man must be a creator.

While a deconstructionist may have 'the group' in mind, it is still an individualized group that follows 'what they think is right,' as you put it. — dani

By 'individualized' are you just speaking to a 'group' adequately delineating itself? I ask, as i don't recognize what you're describing in these movements at all really. The whole 'eating it's tail' trope around identitarian groups having very much gate-keeping qualities about them comes to mind.

I might be over-blowing that particular aspect - but it does seem to me that the Frankfurt/Horkheimer origins speak to a very distinct flavour of anti-individualism, essentially replacing individual conceptions with group-accepted ones, in turn attempting to pit these against the conceptions and gate-keeping of other groups in a 'power struggle'. This is never done on the individual level, so i guess I'm wanting a bit more to understand the position that deconstructionist thought has any focus on individuation beyond lip-service?

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things? — Athena

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory

Living without a god. Living without something higher. Plato does this with the idea of the good. — Fooloso4

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good. In AA they hold a concept of a higher power that is not dependent on the Bible. When we think of that higher power or the good we are opening our minds to something new, a better self. Just denying God is not the same thing and the difference is very important to our understanding of democracy.

I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche and his effect on too many people. Also, such statements are perceptions of a young person, not an older person. If I were a college student I would do a paper on how age changes our thinking and I would use several philosophers to make my point. And you can bet your bippy, such a thought would have never come to my mind when I was a young college student. I remember my rebellious years.

I want to thank you for your arguments that have made me more aware and concerned about how age changes our perspective. Socrates had to be in his later years when he said an unexamined life isn't worth living because that is not the thought of a young person. You have to have years of life experience before there is a life to examine. In comparison, Nietzsche's egotistical statement lacks life experience or at least experience with other cultures.

But if we have killed God then what? — Fooloso4

That is a young person's egotistical trip and it is not good for society. I am opposed to Christianity because it is such a problem! Like if I must believe in God then please give me one that is believable. Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God. In India, there is a different concern about our egos and wars. Nietzsche is not likely to be popular in India.

I think it must be just the opposite. A person must overcome the burden Christianity has imposed on us. We must question rather than obey the tablets of "thou shall nots". See the chapter "The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" in Zarathustra. — Fooloso4

How about if we want to know "God" we make an effort to know the worldwide and historical notions of god or the creator? Germans who became very popular seem to me to be very culturally limited. Except Spinoza. I am quite sure Spinoza was aware of Eastern thinking.

Every civilization needs the short list of correct human behavior because it is many years before a human knows enough to have good judgment. This can be learning 12 characteristics of democracy and learning the virtues. We have societies by agreement that form the culture that is essential for civilized living. Again I will say, that I think Nietzsche was young and egoistical because an older person might appreciate social order and be less inclined to oppose it and think "I am god and there will be no god above me." I can remember my years of opposing the oppression of society and how long it took me to get the reasoning behind our culture.

I said "I don't mean the person needs to be a Christian, but despite not being a Christian s/he can relate to Nietsche because s/he has no other frame of thought." and I don't think you got my point. Everyone comes to Nietzsche through Christianity, whether that person is a Christian or not. The average person is not trying to understand all thoughts of god/creator and as many other cultures as possible, so the reference for the whole Western civilization is Christianity. We wear cultural and religious blinders.

We are creators and the Greek gods were as humans, except they were immortal. I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. The God of Abraham is absolute power and control and this is nothing like the Greek gods who were limited, who were compelled to do this or that because of logos, and who argued with each other. They made us aware of many different concepts and points of view that lead to increasing our knowledge and perhaps taking this god's side of a disagreement or that god's side. We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think. Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy.

The Great Man Theory assumes that world-changing leaders are born, not socialized. In fact, most of them --- Alexander the Great, Napoleon, (Trump???) --- were ass-holes in social interactions, and dictatorial in their governance. Their fervid followers followed them, not because they were nice guys, but because they were perceived to have the "right-stuff" to change the world from the unsatisfactory status quo. It's the job of collectivist-socialist nerds to counteract the immoral excesses of the world-conquerors.

But even the bureaucratic leaders of the masses sometimes turn-out to be ass-holes ; perhaps due to the absolute power corrupts principle. The rest of us have to choose which band-wagon to jump on. Or to arduously make our own path. Fortunately, Democracy allows us the freedom to choose neither King nor Communism. But even that option is an uphill struggle without a clear path to follow. :smile:



Essentially, according to the Great Man Theory, people in positions of power deserve to lead because of characteristics granted to them at birth, which ultimately help them become heroes. No great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men.
https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/anthropology/great-man-theory — Gnomon

:gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that?

Reading your post, I got a little tickled by a different point of view from ancient Athens. In ancient Greek thought the gods chose who would be heroes but not all chosen men became heroes. It seems they saw the masses like cattle, content to go with the flow as long as their bellies were full. And those chosen to be heroes could decline and not accept the challenge the gods had given them.

They also had a system that prevented people from risking having too much power. If a person overstepped the person could be osterized for 10 years. This would take care of the Trump problem.

Ostracism (Greek: ὀστρακισμός, ostrakismos) was an Athenian democratic procedure in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively. It was used as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or a potential tyrant, though in many cases popular opinion often informed the expulsion. The word "ostracism" continues to be used for various cases of social shunning. — Wikipedia

I don't like it when Wikipedia and others claim Zeus was the king. Zeus and the rest of the gods and goddesses were one big family. They argued just as humans do until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Well, that reasoning part came a bit late when Apollo stepped into the picture and Athens began tipping away from superstition and towards science. For a while strong men who owed the property essential to wealth provided a might makes right social order, but following the Persian wars, Athens advanced democracy.

To understand bureaucratic leadership, we need to understand Prussian military bureaucracy and how that was applied to citizens. This creates a very powerful bureaucracy that crushes individual liberty and power and the US has fully embraced this. The US has replaced its domestic education based on Athens' education for well-rounded individual growth, with Germany's model of education for technology that goes with the German bureaucratic model. People are now specialized instead of prepared to be generalists and this impacts the democratic order. The day everyone can discuss this, I will die of shock because it is not a common area of study. However, we have history and we can know the result of adopting Germany's models of bureaucracy and education, a leader like Trump, and a Congress that has become dysfunctional.

Wow, it would be mind-blowing if we could get into what bureaucratic organization has to do with leadership! How do we like the Republican power games and Democratic fumbling? I promise you I am a strong Christian and God himself wants you to vote for me and help our great Republic defend itself from evil and the godless people of the world. :wink: Do I have your vote?

By 'individualized' are you just speaking to a 'group' adequately delineating itself? I ask, as i don't recognize what you're describing in these movements at all really. The whole 'eating it's tail' trope around identitarian groups having very much gate-keeping qualities about them comes to mind.

I might be over-blowing that particular aspect - but it does seem to me that the Frankfurt/Horkheimer origins speak to a very distinct flavour of anti-individualism, essentially replacing individual conceptions with group-accepted ones, in turn attempting to pit these against the conceptions and gate-keeping of other groups in a 'power struggle'. This is never done on the individual level, so i guess I'm wanting a bit more to understand the position that deconstructionist thought has any focus on individuation beyond lip-service? — AmadeusD

Please forgive my complete ignorance of these people and everything they have been doing. If anyone wants more information here is a link. https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20key%20issues,of%20the%20pathologies%20of%20society.

I want to rush to a John Dewey book and see how compatible he is with the "Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world." If I didn't have a day job, I would love to go to a retreat and spend at least 6 months understanding the School and comparing it to John Dewey's thinking.

The information you offered definitely applies to this thread but I have too much to learn before I can work with this information. Can you give us a bite-sized concept that we might chew on? When I read your post, my first thought was we all need a sense of belonging and this leads us to join groups that give us a sense of meaning and belonging. People who do not establish a support group, tend to be isolated and lonely. Money can definitely make that easier to bear but as I work with older people, my job is a whole lot harder if my client is alone in this world.

I don't think living without something higher is equal to Plato's idea of the good. — Athena

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher.

That sounds a little egotistical, and it seems to be exactly why I dislike Nietzsche — Athena

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike.

And you can bet your bippy — Athena

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy.

Nietzsche may not have had such a following without that jealous, revengeful, punishing God. — Athena

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know.

The God of Abraham is absolute power and control ... — Athena

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being.

who were compelled to do this or that because of logos — Athena

This is not an argument I am familiar with. My impression is that they were compelled by desire - lust and power.

We really underappreciate the importance of these gods, because Christianity has reduced our ability to think. — Athena

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence.

Our thoughts stop with the one and only God, and this is terrible for democracy. — Athena

This is true for some but certainly not for others. Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say.

:gasp: This is from your link "Leadership traits are inherent and cannot be learned." Does anyone today believe that? — Athena

I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.

Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh:

For Plato the good is what is higher. In the Christian West the death of God is for Nietzsche the rejection of anything higher. That is so in part because God was held to be what is higher. Nietzsche makes the connection with the notion of a value free objective science. He asks what we will find to stand as something higher. — Fooloso4

AmadeusD — AmadeusD

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones and boy are we in a mess! That goes with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church. A terrible mistake. Democracy was not an unknown value and fortunately, liberal colleges are keeping classical education alive. But waiting for college is too late! The essential education for life needs to begin in first grade. I have old textbooks that show how values were once taught.

I think it is intended to mimic the Bible, which I know you also dislike. — Fooloso4

:lol: Yes, Germany left moral training to the church as the US has done since adopting the German model of education. That is not compatible with democracy.

Alas, in my old age I lost my bippy. — Fooloso4

:lol: :up:

Unlike some philosophers Nietzsche doe not speak about timeless truths. If things were different the issues he addresses would be different. What he would say and how interesting it would be I don't know. — Fooloso4

What would be interesting to me is what age was he when he wrote of different things. I am sorry but I see him as an angry young man who says what he says to get attention, and how is that as valuable as seeking timeless truths? That statement is not just about him but also those who admire him. I have public speaking training and a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners. Perhaps my life experience tells me nothing about him, but I am explaining where I am coming from so you can tell me if I am wrong.

If there was an Abraham this is not a god he would have recognized. The idea of omnipotence was a later development. From what I have read the major influence was Greek philosophy and the idea of a perfect being. — Fooloso4

No, Abraham is a human who led his people out of Ur (former Sumerian City) and back to Egypt. Sumer had fallen but it still had the Sumerian archives where the Sumerian stories were stored leading to Abraham carrying these Sumerian stories that became our Bible stories.

We should be so lucky for all to aspire to be heroes or the perfect human. Even if we only do this for ourselves it still comes up as very good for democracy. For fun, we might explore what does it mean to be perfect? Zeus committed adultery, and Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes". Next question "Is it good to commit adultery?" The answer is "no". Can we think about how imperfect the gods were before we attempt to define the ideal human? Perhaps you can see a huge gap
between my thinking and the thinking of those blinded by Christianity.

By the time of Plato, if not before, the gods had already been diminished in importance and influence. — Fooloso4

Yes, the Persian wars led to the Athenian navy which became merchant ships after the war and then colonization and as the Athenians learned about different gods they started to question what they thought they knew. Having many gods is totally different from having one absolute god. Freedom of religion welcomed everyone's gods and this weakened the whole god thing.

Even with those who believe in God there is interest in what other religions, sects, and cultures have to say. — Fooloso4

That interest is not nearly as strong as Evangelical Christians. I am out of time but the subject is wonderful! Thank you so much for your arguments. We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true. :grin:

I don't know if a complete survey of such political attitudes has been done. But I recently saw a video of a Trump supporter, who said something like "if he was not praying daily, how could he get to be a billionaire?", and by implication, president. SomeTrumpers seem to believe his own propaganda, that he is a born --- and born-again --- Genius.

Perhaps a combination of inborn superiority and a close relationship with god, will make you a leader : economically and politically. Apparently, a significant portion of the political spectrum believes something like that. :meh: — Gnomon

Perect! I hate to leave this discussion now but what you said goes perfectly with my closing statement to Fooloso4. The strongest power may not be the truth. It should be the truth, but critical thinking is essential to knowing truth and Americans are not high on critical thinking compared to being an Evangelical Christian. And I think you tied that to capitalism very nicely. :cheer:

AmadeusD
— AmadeusD

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones and boy are we in a mess! — Athena

Hi Athena! Sorry for not yet replying to your earlier comment. I don't necessarily think I am the best-placed member to give a good account of that school of thought.

However, did i miss something that the post i've quoted above relates to? I'm unsure it was intended for me :)

Yes and colleges have been favoring German philosophers over the classical ones ... — Athena

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented.

By way of comparison, I went on to teach courses on Chinese, Japanese, and Greek philosophy.

But waiting for college is too late! — Athena

Yes, I agree.

... a speaker should begin with knowing the audience and adjust the speech with knowledge of the listeners. — Athena

In the section "Reading and Writing" from Zarathustra he says:

He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader.

A couple of quotes from Wittgenstein sheds some light on this:

From the preface to Philosophical Investigations:

I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking.

And in Culture and Value:

No one can think a thought for me in the way that no one can don my hat for me.

Someone can put my hat on but it won't keep my head warm.

Abraham is a human ... — Athena

If you mean he was a real person, a historical figure you will not find much scholarly support. If you mean that these stories had their antecedents then yes, but as they have come to us they reflect other ideas as well.

Here is an interesting commentary on this from Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge, but from God to Adam to Eve to the serpent what God said has already been altered. Eve embellishes the story, not only are they forbidden from eating the fruit of the tree, they are forbidden from even touching it. In addition, the tree "in the midst of the garden" is not the tree of knowledge but the tree of life. One might think that the move from an oral tradition to a written one has solved that problem but it has not. It is not a question of not hearing correctly or not remembering correctly but of interpretation. It is not simply a matter of the words of God but of their interpretation. The serpent understood this. He spoke the truth when he assured Eve that they would not die on the day they ate of the tree. But his reputation for subtlety is well deserved. It is because of what they did on that day that they would die. As a literal interpretation of God's warning the serpent was right, they did not die on that day, but that was not the whole of it, as he knew. He wittingly deceived her, but we, wittingly or unwittingly, deceive ourselves; interpreting things in such a way that they conform to some larger picture or structure of belief.

Socrates asked, "Are the gods good?" the answer is "yes". — Athena

According to Plato's Euthyphro the answer is no. Their less than exemplary behavior is the basis of Socrates' criticism of Euthyphro's misguided piety.

We might ask what is strength because the strongest may not be what is true. — Athena

Yup. This is the ambiguity the Sophists exploited, including their present day brethren, lawyers, and all too often philosophers who are skilled at making strong arguments.

In some cases this is true. When I went to grad school I found out who was teaching at the schools I was considering and what their approach and interests were. More often than not, they favored American analytic philosophy. I did not find evidence of "moral training" but moral philosophy was often represented. — Fooloso4

Interesting. Starting out my academic journey sort of at the moment - seeking advice from many quarters, the one cohesion between the bits of advice i've gotten is to ensure the faculty doesn't favour continental philosophy - and that this is widespread, and a slippery slope to actually not doing philosophy lol.

obviously, i can't speak one way or the other, but interesting that you've a different conception of that. Gives me pause.

My advice is to consider what interests you. Whether that is particular philosophers, particular problems, or particular approaches. Check out the faculty and what areas they write on. Some departments are big enough that you might find a few members you want to work with. It might be a good idea not look to match your interests too closely and expand the way you think about things.

As to continental vs. analytic, the people you are talking to are just showing their biases. The division is not always hard and clear-cut.

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age.

Fair enough. Luckily, that was (roughly) the approach i took anyway.

However, I've seen a pretty clear distinction - some schools only teach what is generally understood to be 'continental' philosophy to the exclusion of anything similar to the majority of what i understand to be analytic philosophy. I saw one department that only offered courses from Kant forward to the Frankfurt school and no further (i.e, still some modern philosophers but only included the likes of Zizek and the Ljubljana school, basically, under their BA structure.

Maybe i just 'got lucky' in that sense - But in any case, i am far more toward choosing courses and tutors based on the questions i want to address in the next forty-some years.

Where are you located?