For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. — Bob Ross

Partly because 'degeneracy' is far more evident in some western countries than in some you consider inferior. If you were serious about promoting democracy, you would work for reform in your own country.
Because western leaders and nearly all of their people lack the drive to conquer. Because 'democratic values' are not robust enough to transplant: democracy survives only where it grows from a unique seed, in conditions appropriate to the climate.
Because it can't be imposed. Imposition is the opposite of democracy.
Because no western nation is powerful enough, no matter how many people it kills, cripples and displaces, no matter how much land it renders uninhabitable, how much of its resources are sacrificed, to attain, let alone maintain, such an empire. No nation is asks a foreigner to relieve it of its own government; even the most unhappy population will fight for its identity.

if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences — Bob Ross

That if doesn't bear scrutiny - in relation to more countries North Korea. That, too, is a good reason: consequences to the aggressor. What's the point of an empire of radioactive rubble and rotting corpses?

Now, I will end this OP by noting that I see the obvious downsides of nationalism (when it becomes radical)

That's the inevitable destination: jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression and/or civil war.

What the EU should do is all of the above. What it probably will do is fall apart.

The dominant theory governing the workings of the individual is called, rational-self-interest. — Shawn

Can rational self-interest account for religious zealotry, patriotism or racism?
If you separate the economic arrangements of a society from its world-view, social structure and moral foundations, you end up with the fragment of a picture and no understanding.

Thanks. We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when....

Where does he say that? — Ludwig V

Oh, dear - again? Didn't I link the correspondence. You can read the fifth meditation, if you like. It's exceeding tedious in describing the heart and circulation, but does explicitly recommend the reader to witness it in 'any large animal'. There's a lot of guff about the soul and reason and why animals don't have those things: because they don't speak French.

Are we including fair and balanced as well? — Ludwig V

You mean like Trump(except we have to sanewash him)=Harris(except we set the bar higher)? I don't think so.

Why do you think we perceive things so differently? — Athena

Many reasons. Temperament, upbringing, self-interest, culture.

Some of us are horrified by animal and human brutality and others are not. — Athena

And some order it and always find many to carry it out.
You just don't see that in prairie dog society.

All animals are less civilized and rational. — Athena

I respectfully disagree.

No matter how smart our dogs are, we are not going to give them voting rights. — Athena

Or exemption from the gas chamber if there are more of them than we like. I know. But then we don't treat our fellow humans any better.

It would take an angel to be on the right side of every debate at the same time. But then, you have high standards, it would seem. — Ludwig V

And that's a bad thing? It didn't take any angels to establish animal protection laws - just a lot of determined ordinary people, with ordinary IQ's and no individual influence. I didn't ask him to be on the right side of every debate; I do blame him for endorsing one particularly horrific practice.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that he approved of everything his followers did — Ludwig V

In the face of the vigorous philosophical arguments he made supporting the clockwork idea, approval would seem the least of his complicity. Probably, most of the inquisitors didn't personally heat the pincers, but they understood the use of hot pincers and published theological justification for their use.

That sounds rather hard on people. — Ludwig V

Why?
[Surely, if I'm exposed to some evidence for an idea, but there's not enough evidence to justify believing it, I am right to reject it, [/quote] Without consideration, or further inquiry? Well, I just hope you're not an antivaxer. I've encountered a few intelligent posters who keep insisting that we go back to original research, because there's just not enough evidence to support the theory of evolution. I do think that's willful ignorance. It's their loss; I don't punish them for it. I probably do the same regarding subjects I don't care about.

In any case, there isn't enough time to live a life and think carefully about everything we need to know. — Ludwig V

Ignoring what you need to know will cause errors, maybe serious ones, in your life. We all make some bad judgments because we didn't think things through. But, sure, you choose to learn what matters to you. And then you lie about some things you know when lying serves a purpose that matters to you. That's all rational thinking.

Nonetheless, deliberately leading someone to believe something that you know to be false is generally disapproved of. — Ludwig V

Not by all the parents who tell their children about Santa Claus! I think their story is silly, too readily exploitable, not thoroughly considered - but their motives are benign. Nor all the spy agencies in the world, convinced that they are defending their country and its values.
It depends on why you're doing it: to protect potential victims, or to benefit from the deception - from laudable to trivial to reprehensible.

So forgiveness becomes important, to prevent pursuit of the good turning into the tyranny of perfection. — Ludwig V

Sure. But let's try to be accurate in our observations and honest in our assessment.
It's for their God, not me, to absolve them for their motives or toss them into The Pit for their crimes.

Societies swing. Some things get worse and worse until people unite to change what is causing things to get worse. This is the fun of life. We have problems to resolve. — Athena

The dying planet won't wait for us to swing around like a leaking oil tanker.

That is the bottom line of this thread. The differences between animals and humans, and why we are not as civilized as educated people used to be. — Athena

Have you looked at any newspaper headlines lately?
Which animals are less civilized and rational than humans?

But then, there is a difficulty about the intersection of rationality with morality. — Ludwig V

I do believe - sincerely - that they do not conflict. Any more than a pencil and brush in an artist's satchel, or a hammer and pliers in a carpenter's toolbox. Our mental equipment includes a great many tools that are separate one from another. When I say something is rational, I mean that it is based on observed or assumed fact and is aimed at solving a problem or achieving a goal. There is no value judgment here of the worthiness of the goal or the cause of the problem. Whether it's aimed at a better cancer treatment or a more effective weapon of mass destruction, the thought process is rational.

I believe it is the case that Descartes never indulged in the vicious torture of nailing animals to planks, but that some students who followed Descartes did. — Ludwig V

I don't know whether he did it or only defended the prevailing practice. It doesn't matter now. It mattered when the prevailing practice was questioned, opposed, justified on philosophical grounds and therefore continued. In this, he was greatly influential.
The rational component of that justification is the aim of gaining more knowledge of physiology*. The moral component - if there is one in your world-view - is wilful disregard of the pain caused.
*If a person truly believes that the mechanical dog and feeling man are of different kinds, why would he consider the physiology of dogs useful in understanding how humans work? Does it matter that the vast majority of humans do not philosophize and some cannot speak? In fact, the doctors dissected executed people in the same lecture hall as the vivisection lessons. They were not legally permitted to study live humans, so they went to the next best thing. Can you possibly imagine none of these intelligent men knew what the screaming signified?
I never understood why you introduced the moral component.

So, for me, saying what one sincerely believes to be true, even if it turns out to be false, is not lying. There's an exception, that one might sincerely believe something because of wishful thinking, or carelessness; but saying that it is true is a different moral failing, for which we don't have a name — Ludwig V

There is no need to conflate those ideas. Obviously, stating one's belief is not lying. It only becomes so if one is exposed to the truth and rejects it. Making oneself believe what isn't true is lying to oneself, whether it's said to anyone else or not. Nobody believes falsehoods through simple carelessness, though they may repeat what they've heard because they don't care enough to reflect. That may be trivial or criminal, depending on the falsehood and its effect on the world.
But why is lying a immoral? There are many reasons to lie, some of them laudable, some despicable. There are also many styles and standards morality; what one culture or individual applauds, another may despise. I don't believe there has ever been a sane adult in the world who is or was morally pure, or entirely truthful or altogether devoid of hypocrisy. None of our heroes and role models are so much more perfect than we are.
Why is that a problem?

Well, if you said that Galileo was a hypocrite, I would agree on the basis that it was, technically, but justified on the basis that being tortured or burnt at the stake was an unreasonable price to pay for following a purely academic line of research and so lying was a rational way to get out of his situation, — Ludwig V

Of course it was. Wouldn't you? Joan of Arc was crazy; Giordano Bruno was an ideologue. Most of us normal people practice some degree of hypocrisy, simply to get by, and more to get along.

even though, if you are a Kantian, lying is always wrong. — Ludwig V

I'm not, and that's a ridiculous, unrealistic position. Also, in many case, immoral.

Descartes' case is much less clear. — Ludwig V

He learned a lesson from other men's examples. He was smarter than most of his contemporaries - smarter than Galileo who seems to have considered himself the smartest man alive.

Descartes isn't quite in that bracket because he frames his doubt as "merely" theoretical. — Ludwig V

That doesn't persuade me of his sincerity. If it persuades you, all's well.

However, his critique is milder than yours, in my book. — Ludwig V

Yes. He was encumbered by the 'soul' issue; I'm not.

I would expect, however that Cudworth did not think that animals had souls — Ludwig V

That's just how he did justify the moral position held by a minority of thinkers at the time that it's wrong to torture animals.

But Cudworth didn’t think that the similarity between man and beast was purely biologically based, as most of us would argue today. Instead, Cudworth argued that animals, like humans, have souls.

Descartes also preferred to replace "vivisection/torture" with "killing and eating" in the moral argument. It's way more acceptable to defend throwing chunks of beef in a pot than dislocating a dog's shoulders and hips, then nailing his paws to a plank and slitting his belly open, all the while he's screaming in agony. Most people who object to torture (then and now) do not object to killing enemies in war, or eating humanely-killed flesh. Most people in the argument do not draw the moral line at possession of a soul or human language (though some philosophers still do) but at deliberate infliction of pain on a sentient being, for whatever reason. Let's shift those posts back to the real issue.
Of which vivisection was an offshoot. It does demonstrate hypocrisy: he could maintain - paraphrased by the French philosopher Nicolas Malebranche - that animals “eat without pleasure, cry without pain, grow without knowing it; they desire nothing, fear nothing, know nothing.” and yet take Monsieur Grat for a walk, fully expecting that the dog would not shit on his rug, expecting him to obey commands and and appreciate treats.
But it's the God argument I originally mentioned.
Had he been entirely honest in that meditation, he would have questioned all beliefs, rather than making the church's case. Theoretically. Funny, how it all works out, innit?
I never blamed him for that hypocrisy: it was the rational choice.

That God/soul problem persisted in all philosophical arguments as long as the HRC held Europe in its grip. After the Reformation, thinking became a little more free and diverse, even though most Protestant sects were also intolerant of agnostic ideas - but at least they didn't have an Inquisition to cow their own congregants into silence. A couple of them still persecuted witches and expelled heretics, but they were less dangerous than the unchecked (and profoundly corrupt) Catholic church.

There's not way of knowing, and consequently no evidence that it was just a matter of convenience. — Ludwig V

Convenience was my guess. You have other choices: absolute conviction in the teeth of all evidence, willful self-delusion, subconscious delusion, fear of prosecution, sadistic monster.... More if you can find them. But I still don't understand why you want to, when it's independent of the serendipitous discovery of God (....the majority of whose creatures are nothing but noisy machines. Pretty damn disrespectful of the Creator for a devout Christian - but that, too, is beside the point.) All humans compartmentalize their beliefs and attitudes. There are no sane, intelligent, totally honest humans.

Procrastination is the result of internal conflict, and hence of a divided mind. If I am single minded, there can be no conflict; I am doing what I am doing, wholeheartedly. — unenlightened

Yes, exactly that! And it's unwinnable: if you force yourself to do what needs doing, you resent the process; if someone else has to do it, you feel guilty and obliged; if it doesn't get done tonight, it will be waiting for you in the cold light of morning.
Every minute you're aware of procrastinating, your Inner Critic is either actively chiding or quietly stockpiling blame.
One approach is to consider all possible options and deliberately, purposefully choose the least objectionable path. The fact of being purposeful already gives your mood a lift: See, Inner Critic, I'm in control again.
Another approach

I tend to trust procrastination. It's happening for a reason. — frank

is to figure out the reason. Most common: the task is unpleasant. (Like neglected leftovers in the fridge, it will only become more unpleasant with putting-off.) Also common: creative block. That, you have to wait out, confident in the knowledge that the whole time you're distracting yourself with solitaire, the kitten or You Tube, the little wheels somewhere deep in your brain are turning furiously: the story or design or shape of a nose will come into focus when it's ready. (That's hard with a deadline; you have to find more energetic distractions, like racket ball or tossing a frisbee for someone's dog.)

Although, sometimes finishing what I started is a toughy. I can reward myself for getting shit done...like I won't eat lunch until x is finished.

Setting goals and rewards is sometimes a viable strategy. It may help to divide a daunting project into more manageable portions. After I've removed all the stakes and binding from the tomato bins, I can have a snack and watch a tv show. Then I'll pull all the dead tomato plants and carry them out to the compost. That will get me to dinner time. Tomorrow, I'll turn the soil and cover the bins.
At least, that's the plan. I haven't put on my shoes yet and I'm already tired. Still, it must get done before the snow flies (like, tonight?)

I actually agree about the suffering. It's just that I doubt that he and his colleagues made much practical difference. It's not as if animal welfare has ever been a moral issue before our time. — Ludwig V

It was a moral issue in Descartes' time.

The response to Descartes I want to look at here though, is not modern. It belongs to a now little-known philosopher called Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688), a younger contemporary of Descartes. Cudworth was an Anglican theologian, a keen Classicist, and for most of his career, Cambridge University’s Professor of Hebrew. Along with the aforementioned Henry More, he was a leading member of a group of philosophers known as the Cambridge Platonists, who promoted the relevance of Platonic philosophy to contemporary life and thought. Although he agreed with Descartes on many things, Cudworth thought (as did More) that Descartes’ view of animals as mindless machines was implausible.

He defended his entrenched mechanistic position in many arguments. His main theme was: They have no souls; therefore they feel neither pleasure nor pain. But admitted that they can exhibit "passions".... The guy had a dog in his house. Was he unable to see the dog's responses as being like his own, or he did he choose to ignore the similarity because it wasn't convenient? Remember, this is not a stupid man; he's defending a theory - at least in public.

It would prefer "after supposedly ridding himself of all learned beliefs". — Ludwig V

I was skeptical, too. But it's what he claimed as the object of the exercise: get to the truth by doubting everything he'd ever been taught or believed. (Except that.)
Why are you going on out on a plausibility limb to defend a hypocrisy that can't be sanctioned or punished at this late date? It served his purpose, so that was the rational path.

Inflation is caused by a number of interacting factors, money supply being only one of them. Your understanding of it is at least as solid as Trump's. Anyway, he does want to raise taxes on poor people who shop at Walmart, by imposing high tariffs on goods imported from China. Then raise the price of food by deporting the low-paid migrant workers who harvest and pack most of it. Of course, both of those measures will increase inflation, but closing the schools will put a whole new generation of cheap labour on the market. Eliminating Medicare will cover the huge tax breaks for his rich donors. Musk won't have to peddle his sperm to make ends meet.

You seem to really have it in for Descartes. He is iconic and takes a lot of stick. — Ludwig V

In for? You mean judge him as I would any mortal making his way in the real world? Okay, I do hate what he and his cohort did to our relationship with nature and other species, the two hundred years of suffering they inflicted on helpless animals. He's not responsible for that; he's just a participant who was clever enough to make himself an icon. My insignificant opinion won't deter any of his fans.

But we were not talking about that. I was referring to his very sensible use of God to avoid confrontation with the Inquisition. Spending time in the more tolerant Netherlands was a smart move, too. Icons are for the faithful. I have no faiths. But I would have pretended whatever was required if the inquisitors had their eye on me; I certainly don't fault anyone for doing it, and if they're clever enough, turning it to their own advantage.

But he wasn't the one who invented God, or even the argument he used to argue for the reality of that God. — Ludwig V

He just pretended to rediscover it after ridding himself of all learned beliefs. It was merely an example of rational thinking not subjugated to truth.

The difference between the two is that Galileo pretended to accept that his theory was an erroneous hypothesis when he believed that it was a true account and while Descartes never pretended that his scepticism was more than a possibility; he was exploring it n order to refute it. — Ludwig V

Of course, Galileo was both right and wrong. He endorsed the Copernican system (Copernicus himself was rational enough not to publish in his lifetime) and rejected the far more accurate Keplerian system.
Descartes God was a creative invention, just like his clockwork world. It's easy to play back-and-dorth with fiction; take no principles at all.

My personal belief is that knowledge is a form of "memory" encoded in the brain, more specifically the hippocampus. — Shawn

Of course knowledge is stored in memory. There are only two forms of memory: short- and long-term. The short term memory is information. If it's used right away - like a postal code or sale price - it's discarded immediately after; you cannot recall what cantaloupes cost in August, 2004. But if your Grade 4 teacher was any good, you remember the 9X table. That's knowledge in long-term memory.

But that knowledge consists of all kinds of things. The name of your pets, of doughnuts, constellations, dead movie stars, cars, sporting events, chemical elements, philosophers, restaurants; how to park uphill, what pie charts mean, what a jerk your boss is, how hot sand feels on your soles, that you shouldn't wear white after Labour Day, how much to tip a cab driver, the taste of mashed potatoes, what never to say to your significant other unless you want a fight.... Knowledge is all the useful and precious and unwelcome clutter in your memory. There is no index or handy catalogue: you have only a vague idea what-all is in there; half of it is only available when you're deeply asleep.
Of course every scrap of knowledge contributes to your identity. You grow with each experience, with every fact you learn, with every skill you acquire.
The down-side is, when you forget things, your identity diminishes.

what does the reader think about the quote from Wittgenstein and the role of education and learning on the development of the person or individual in terms of their psychology and "identity"? — Shawn

Education is just another part of life. If it's formal, you learn conformity, discipline, compartmentalization of subject matter, some social skills, a respect for or resentment of authority, depending on your school(s). You also learn many things that may be useful through your whole life and many others that you need only until the exams are done. You won't always know which is which until thirty years later when you discover you can correct the rival who misquotes Hamlets' soliloquy or you need to make a tent out of a canvas sheet. Aside from the influence of the school environment on your attitudes, education is just more stuff deposited in the memory banks. If it's informal, education is simply instruction and experience. Whatever environment it takes place in will influence your attitudes.

All experience adds to identity.

BTW, I've heard people commenting on Descartes' personal moral stance before, but I've never quite understood what the problem is. — Ludwig V

No problem. After Galileo had his little confrontation with the good fathers - and quite rationally stood down from his heretical belief in the Earth moving around the sun - every thinker in Europe had some difficult moments rethinking their strategy. So Descartes has his big truth-seeking exercise: purges his mind of all beliefs, everything he's ever been taught, delves way down in there for one incontrovertible fact and comes up with "I exist" OK... "But wait, here's another incontrovertible truth: God. Didn't learn about God; it wasn't a belief: I just happened to find Him in here at the bottom of my completely empty mind. And now, I shall proceed to unfold my theory of a mechanistic universe, only God's winding all the clockwork animals. Oh, and people are a mechanistic body with a completely independent, immaterial soul.
Are you convinced of his sincerity?

You can't be moral when you're dead - so you compromise to stay alive. That's rational. The same person who made that compromise might still be honest with his friends, faithful to his wife, accurate in his court testimony, prompt in the payment of his debts and play a clean game of billiards.
Why insist that anyone be pure in both thinking and probity? That's just not human. The insides of our heads are never swept clean like Descartes imagined that one time.

That is something we can change. We may not do so before destroying our planet and making our present civilizations impossible, but I do believe we can make better decisions. — Athena

Like you said: hundreds of years for this, decades for that.... Have you noticed what's happening in the US election? We simply ran out of time. What's the point of 'making better choices' when everyone left on the planet is fighting over the last habitable acre?

But then he would be guilty of hypocrisy. — Ludwig V

I don't know about that, which is why I said 'might'. I do know Descartes was. I was only interested in the rationality of their thought, whatever the rationale - not in whether they actually believed in the product.
I'm not assessing people or judging their morals or psychoanalyzing them: I'm only concerned with whether the thought process being exhibited is rational or irrational. Without accusing anyone specific of lying, it is very often the most rational approach to a situation; a lunatic can shout out what he really thinks and feels, if he's heedless of the consequences.

Rational thought is less often used in the service of Truth than in achieving goals. — Vera Mont

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Practical reason is inherently morally ambiguous; a bad actor can be entirely rational. — Ludwig V

Again, I'm not concerned with anyone's morality. I'm concerned with judging whether a thought process is rational or irrational. If it achieves a discernible goal, opens a gate, invents a helicopter, evades a predator, earns you a promotion, liberates the cookies from the box, it's rational thought, whatever motivated the goal, whatever tactics were employed.

It is only theoretical reason that is in the service of truth.

Both require facts which are true. If one's goal is to discover some particular truth, like who broke into the Watergate, or whether Christine has been unfaithful, or how magnetism and electricity interact, or how many marbles will raise the water level so you can reach the treat, it's still goal-oriented thought. I don't believe there such a thing as a great big all-encompassing Truth to which you can apply rational thought. You can think quite a lot about how to talk about Truth, but you can't comprehend it with reason; the Truth is too abstract to capture with anything but faith. (Not saying definitively that It isn't 'out there'; only that I can't believe in it.)

But there it can be very hard to tell which of them has really put their finger on an actual wrong, as opposed to a perceived wrong. — Ludwig V

Of course. My point was only that social injustices were always perceived by some people, even against an overwhelming cultural norm.
You can only judge according to your own values. If you assume that enslaving people is wrong and somebody in 400BCE spoke up against it, you're likely to think he perceived correctly. If you think people should be equal under the law, you'll probably disagree with the perception of legislators who blocked women's and Chinese immigrants' voting rights. Whether you think they were/are right or wrong, these actions are rational. The perceived/actual grievances of Maga cultists would be very difficult to sort out, but we could each do it, given a comprehensive list to compare with our own convictions. (but I can't drink hard liquor anymore)

IQ tests were supposed to be such that one could not benefit from practising. — Ludwig V

They're also administered way too late. You have to be literate and numerate to take one; at least 10 years old. By then, whatever experiences you've had since birth formed most of your thinking. There are tests for development - generally aimed at detecting problems - but I'm not sure they're as reliable as the ones given to dogs and crows. Anecdotally, I can tell you that bright parents tend to have bright kids and stupid parents usually have dumb kids, and I could pick the most intelligent toddlers out of a day-care by watching them pay for twenty minutes. But that's not scientific evidence.

But I don't think we should be too hard on people who go along with the conventional views in society. — Ludwig V

I'm not! Quite the reverse: I'm saying that those who didn't stick their necks out for what we consider "the truth" today were acting rationally. So are those who go along to get along now. (Maybe not Bezos, hedging his political bets...)

It took thousands of years for us to develop the idea that there is something wrong with slavery and racism, and it seems absurd to think that all those people were morally deficient in some way. — Ludwig V

Some of them always knew. Very possibly, most of them did, whether they could conceive of an alternative or not. For damn sure, the gladiators in Rome did, and the abducted Africans in American cotton fields. The captives felt it was wrong to be captured, but when they had the chance, they would do the same to an enemy. Nobody wants to be first to stop: it's a sign of weakness. The Quakers knew, and early Mormons and the Cathari long before them. But... The Economy!!!! There is no bloody way a man doesn't know that it's wrong to batter his wife, or a woman doesn't know it's wrong to cripple her little granddaughter's feet, but one has license to unleash his temper and the other has cultural norms to uphold. It's convenient to go along, as well as safer and easier. But there have always been rebels who spoke out against the wrongs in their society - they mostly got killed in unpleasant ways - so we know those wrongs were perceived, even back then when everyone was supposed to be blind.

I thought it [intelligence] was something like the ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge. That would make it something different from knowledge but more about how to acquire knowledge. — Ludwig V

Yes, it is an inherent mental capability - although, like all inborn, or *hold nose* hard-wired traits, it can be dulled or enhanced by environmental factors. Intelligent beings learn to navigate the world by gathering information through their senses and formulating experimental approaches to the problems they encounter.

The information on which they must base decisions comes from the environment. In the case of humans, that ambient information matrix is linguistic and cultural, as well as physical and sensory. If a religious concept, or gender prejudice or architectural style or economic organization is embedded in the culture, those things become, from infancy, part of the 'knowledge' an individual gathers. Those verities form part of the world in which he operates as a problem-solving entity.

At some stage of intellectual development, some of the sharper individuals may question the verities of their culture, the assumptions with which they were raised. In human cultures, such questions can be hazardous; it is often safer not to voice them. Whether a thinker believes in God or not, the example of Galileo fresh in his mind, he [Descartes] may deem it more rational to justify the existence of God than to cast doubt upon it. Or, understanding the dynamics of his society, a career priest [Augustine] might propound Christian/Platonic values as a rational way to support the status quo. Rational thought is less often used in the service of Truth than in achieving goals.

And whales learn songs both from their own and from other pods.
Learning is common to all species that operate in a complex environment (i.e. not underground of stuck to a cave wall) Some learning is solitary experimentation, the way an octopus does. But the social species of mammals and birds teach their young a considerable amount of knowledge and skills.

All true. So why the symbol question? I've seen it bandied about and argued over, but I can't figure out the significance of it.

You could respond instinctively to the gooses hissing which I would say would be a non-symbolically mediated understanding of it. — Janus

Would that be an appropriate response? You might instinctively take it as a friendly greeting, or as just something geese do with no meaning.
In fact, it's a simple enough communication, usually accompanied by threatening stance and body language. Why do you need symbols as an intermediary? Why not regard what's in front of you, recognize the gestures as similar to those of other animals - including your own species - in similar circumstances, and reasonably assume that the goose does not welcome your presence in her personal space or nesting ground, and make a rational decision to retreat?

But the reform of abortion in Ireland is a good example of how influential they can be. — Ludwig V

The assemblies only made recommendations how to frame the debate for a referendum. The referendum itself asked all the citizens one important question

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution? The amended text would read: “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”

After many hearings, arguments, information releases, articles and pamphlets, one question, simple and direct.

Referenda have their place, can be very useful if done properly (not like brexit!). You can't do it with every issue and you can't do it often.

I have a feeling we're about to hit the Lounge. I'll buy the first round, while Vic Fontaine sings Imagine.

My first thought is Athens. — Athena

You're a bit late on that one! I meant - in response to

If we all agree about why civilizations fall, can we use our rationale to prevent that from happening? — Athena

That would make it a choice among those that exist today.

Greer estimates that it takes, on average, about 250 years for civilizations to decline and fall, and he finds no reason why modern civilization shouldn’t follow this “usual timeline.

Couple of problems with that. Without having read The Long Descent (I did read Gibbon on Rome)I suspect that he's not taken into account the relative speed at which the American Empire achieved global dominance or the way the industrial revolution and electronic technology have increased the speed of decline-inducing events: the depletion of natural resources world-wide, the stratification of societies, the environmental degradation, population growth and the spread of disease.
Where Athens was a self-contained city-state that could divorce itself from satellites if they became troublesome; while Rome could gradually abandon occupied territories if they became too burdensome, the US cannot even disengage from local wars of its own making; nor can it shed its international financial interests.

If there is a Resurrection we may be in it now. — Athena

Show me the Messiah(s) who will be followed to this new life.
Tell me when the movement reaches world-changing momentum.

Moving on to logos and universal thinking to save as much of our planet as we can save. — Athena

If that had happened in 1975, we'd have stood a chance. Carter made some effort.... Reagan killed it. The way many Americans remember them is : Reagan, one of the best presidents, ever; Carter, one of the worst. Nearly half of them want an incompetent, incontinent, addled fascist for the next four crucial years. Logos is huddled in a corner, nursing his bruises and sniffling.

It's not just my explanation https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10529410/
Why should "we" prevent history? Which empire would you like to keep in play? It's probably not the same one a Chinese businessman would choose, or a supporter of Modi. Should there be any empires at all? I don't think so, but that's what happens when a nation outgrows is own territory and is powerful enough to annex other territories and exploit their resources. What is it we'd be preserving? The same economic and political arrangement that caused the rapid decline.

We don't have time for the usual process to unfold. Much of the world is either under or threatened by imminent totalitarian rule. The economic disparity is huge and growing in all developed and developing countries alike. The weather isn't just causing local problems anymore: increasingly violent and frequent climate events are rendering large areas of the whole world uninhabitable. There are more people than have ever been, and huge populations are being displaced by famine, environment and war - everywhere. They have no place to go except the populated places that don't want them.
This isn't a discrete, identifiable civilization: this economy is global. When it implodes, there is literally nowhere to hide.
Here is a good article - of course, not everyone agrees.

Are we clear that this is a complete derail from the original subject? Saving or toppling the current civilization has no more to do with rational thinking than the life-cycles of previous civilizations did. Within the life of a tribe, nation or empire, many rational thinkers make decisions relating to whatever their role in that civilization is. But the social and natural and external forces that converge on it determine the path that civilization takes. That's more like an evolutionary process than a rational one.

I had a health scare the other day, so the OG bought Winnie the Pooh. I'll probably watch it with him - sometime. Halloween is coming up, so it's time to put on Nightmare Before Christmas, a perennial favourite.
Lunchtime, we've been watching Portrait Painter of the Year on You Tube. Evenings, Madame Secretary - again.
I've been having strong nostalgia for my favourite movie: Turtle Diary.

Oh, people have opinions on everything within their line of sight, so if you ask them a question about something that they happen to be aware of, and giving an answer is as easy as striking a few keys, they'll be happy to tell you what they think in that moment. Of course, it's an uninformed and only half-formed opinion, and they may think very differently after supper or after talking it over with a teenaged daughter with stronger opinions, or after somebody points out that the solution they chose will cost them money.
If you ask them a question about something they're unaware of and/or don't care about, some of them will still throw out an opinion, relevant or not. If it happens every week, many people will play it like a game, while many others get bored and stop participating.

Not sure this has been mentioned but a referendum is usually a binary choice, greatly influenced by the question asked. — Benkei

I asked who would set the question of the week, among other things worth considering, but my questions were considered 'trivial' and never answered.

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, because in usual democracy, usually not best but the worst people come to power. — Linkey

Do you know what sortition means? Public offices were drawn by lot - not a bunch of people to argue about an issue on film. Very different concepts.

I'm in favour of selecting governing bodies the same way that we select juries. But you don't actually seem to be clear on your proposed system. At all. I recommend more time at the drawing board.

these 200 people will perform a vote, also they can vote for spending some state money for creating a video illustrating their argues and decisions; — Linkey

So decisions on major public issues now hinge on a video of people - 200 people! - arguing? I'm trying to imagine the sound level and clarity.
This idea just keeps getting less plausible.

Some of your questions are trivial. — Linkey

Please list in order of triviality.

Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. — Linkey

Government by focus group... How is that an improvement over the current system, wherein every adult has at least a theoretical opportunity to participate? You want to take away from citizens even that illusion of control?
Of course, that doesn't address the implementation problems.

A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey

And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect?

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. — T Clark

Yes, that's a good one.
So is proportional representation.

Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.

Neither could function with that crazy referendum thing going on. Direct virtual participation could only work if the government consisted of a supercomputer with lots of enforcer and expediter peripherals and veto power over the dumbest public gestures.

Now how about the Glory of Islam, 8th to 13th century, and the decline? How about China that was more advanced than all of Europe and its decline? — Athena

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To everything, there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.

Nations grow rich, then powerful and their rulers grow ambitious. They have the wealth to raise large, well-equipped armies, and the constant anxiety of being overlooked by envious neighbours and hostile rivals. So they go forth to conquer and build empires. The sons and grandsons of these war leaders may not be equal to the task of consolidating and maintaining their forebears' empires; they become complacent and self-indulgent. Factions form among the aristocracy, each group plotting to take over the reins if/when the legitimate ruler falters. The military is overstretched; too expensive to supply efficiently, unable to deliver enough booty from the colonies; the troops are fed up with occupation duties and replacements are harder to recruit, the farther from home they're expected to serve. There are too many subject peoples chafing under foreign domination, looking for a chance to revolt. Meanwhile, those hostile rivals haven't disappeared; they've been growing stronger and richer, forming alliances, perhaps amalgamating: a young, energetic empire is emerging to challenge the superpower of the day.

This historical pattern has nothing to do with human 'advancement', but during the period when each empire is near the top of its cycle, a great many cultural, scientific and technological innovations flourish, because the empire has access to untapped natural and human resources, is motivated to develop those resources and has the material wherewithal to support them.

What has caused advancing civilizations to decline and in some cases to totally distruct? — Athena

Shortage of funds, overreach, mismanagement, corruption, unsustainable disparity, internal unrest and ideological schism, external aggression, and sometimes climate change.

That would mean children born deaf can think well enough to function, communicate and learn sign language. In fact, they begin to invent their own signals between 8 and 12 month, and can be taught the rudiments of ASL at that time, just as hearing babies begin to learn spoken language. They all do need sensory and intellectual stimulation. For non-verbal feral children the requirements of survival would provide plenty of stimulation, as it also does for fox kits and fledgling geese.

It's not that I've been arguing that symbols are important but rather that there is an important distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic signs. don't think it is controversial that one thing we possess that other animals don't seem to is symbolic language. — Janus

When you don't have access to the other entity's mind, I'm not sure you're justified in assuming they have no symbolic communication. You're probably correct in that symbolic language is a uniquely human achievement. What I don't see in practice or agree with in theory is that symbolic language is a prerequisite of rational thought.

Why don't all humans advance? — Athena

Maybe we don't all have the same definition of 'advance'. Maybe some territories were too remote and poor for conquest, and therefore the inhabitants of those undesirable lands didn't have their traditional lifestyle ripped away and destroyed, as so many others did. By the same token, having territory with scant resources means there is not much leisure time for contemplation or extra material for development.

But if you mean, what caused civilization where it did happen, that's a more complex answer. It probably doesn't belong here, but I can point you to a source for the basics. Fundamental difference: enough surplus (of food, natural resources and labour) to support specialized unproductive classes of people, such as administration, priesthood, judiciary and law enforcement, military and clerical, thus stratifying the society and perpetuating a power structure. The influential classes can then patronize artisans and inventors and allocate resources to their own comfort, enrichment, armaments/fortification and glorification through ritual, spectacles, monuments and elaborate burials.