It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy. — praxis

If we continue to ignore what Christianity has to do with what is happening, we stand to lose our democracy. To be fair, some churches take a strong stand in favor of the separation of church and state.
But they are not the Evangelicals who strongly support Trump and the belief that God chose him to be our president.

problem the majority faces. — Fire Ologist

The problem the US faces is replacing the education for democracy we had with the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That ended transferring our culture to the young. It ended the non-religious education for good moral judgment. And it replaced the American dream based on philosophy and the Enlightenment, with the Christian Nation. The result is moral and cultural breakdown, and the Evangelicals are replacing our understanding of democracy with their Christian Nation and a president whom they put next to Jesus Christ.

As a TV evangelist put it. Because Trump is so powerful, we can know God stands with him. Trump is our of Hitler because our young had the education for technology that Germany had, and moral education was left to the church. The Evangelicals are gleefully replacing our American dream with their Christian Nation. The worse we become, the more power the police state gains because we are running on their mythology, and perversely, our failure proves the Christians right. We are destroying our democracy because we left education to the experts, and do not understand what it has to do with the growing evil.

Democrats just won some important elections, and I don't think this would have happened if they had caved to the Republicans to prevent or end the shutdown. The democrats have looked weak for a long time, and this must be turned around.

I would not vote for a female president in the primary, because that is not my image of the president I want. I like traditional values that go with my fantasy about being American. I want a president and a first lady who have charisma like Jack and Jacky Kennedy. Calling them our Camelot says a lot about how we felt, and some of us would love to have that back. It went with "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". John (Jack) Kennedy.

Those words made us feel important and gave us a sense of purpose, and we felt empowered to make our nation great. We, the people with a good leader, can achieve that. That is the opposite of a president who wants us to believe he is next to Jesus Christ, and we should all worship him.

We need to use the law for charity organizations that prevent them from having a tax exemption if they become politically active. We need to put our foot down hard and stop letting evangelicals run right over our nation. And we need to have a strong civics education. Only when democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected. We stopped civic education when we focused education on technology, and left churches to care for our morals. The American dream got replaced by the Christian mythological nation with their next to Jesus Christ President, concentrating all power in him. TV evangelist and ministers, who support this destruction of our democracy, can at least lose their tax exemption.

Hum, in philosophy, there is a problem with separating facts from myths?

We agree, I think? The Christian problem begins with Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam. They are basically the same religion, tailored to fit different cultures. But we could put some blame on Zoroastrianism and Mithra, coming from Persia, with its understanding of good, evil, and demons.

What we have is kind of like a garden with some invasive plants. Some invasive plants are worse than others because they take root and spread so easily, building on the beliefs that are pretty much universal, like believing it is necessary to sacrifice a human to a god.

However, I struggle with the demarcation problem. I think ancient Chinese and South American cultures knew truths that can be helpful to us today, and I am irritated by our cultural bias. Jose' Arguelles' explanation of the Mayan matrix and Pulsation-Rays holds me captive with a curiosity about what he is talking about and how much of this is compatible with our science. Totally dismissing the truths of other cultures is a serious attitude problem in my point of view. The Chinese were right about acupuncture points, and it hasn't been that long ago when we finally accepted we need to stop cutting down trees and polluting our water. We still live in denial of science, and the self-righteousness that goes with this is so offensive.

I do not have a particular problem with the concept. It is just that I don't think it was well used in the context of the present OP. Your example of climate change and its consequences is good, but I can't admit it when we discuss the Laws of Nature when history taught us that knowledge (thanks to human progress) tends to change. Even Pieter acknowledged that perhaps "sacrosanct" is not the correct word to describe the law of gravity (for instance). I understand that "universal" or "symmetric" might be more accurate terms. Yet I also observe disparities here. The point is that "sacrosanct" is more related to divine or god-like arguments. It is acceptable as long as it does not contradict the fields of humanities and science. — javi2541997

That was a delight to read. Yes, the word "sacrosanct" is connected with a god or religious purpose.
My issue is, shouldn't the laws of nature be as important as anything that is held sacred?

I may be wrong, but I think that in the past, Aboriginal people saw nature as God/Creator, and Christianity came in and destroyed that sacred relationship with nature and ourselves. I would like to strengthen our past relationship with nature and a sense of spiritual purpose by giving the words a supportive meaning. I think many people want that?

It's not a simple question. Of course, I'm always curious about how exactly the person I'm speaking with calls the transcendental. Most often, it has to do with its origin (but sometimes it's different). To better understand the person I'm talking to, I believe it's important to consider and understand their views on this matter. But for me personally, I've given up on trying to name God. 2,500 years of philosophy haven't been able to do so. The likelihood that I'll be able to is very slim. Therefore, in such matters, I prefer to strive not to comprehend matter (substantia), but to understand the properties of the dynamics of the manifestation of divine design. — Astorre

Wow, I really, really like that last line! :cheer: I think it is worth my time to contemplate what you said, and if I have any thoughts to work well with it. The words "dynamics of manifestation" particularly get my attention.

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s drawing a boundary between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature — calling the former mutable and the latter immutable. — Astorre

I have no problem with that. I believe global warming will continue to destroy life on our planet as long as human activity continues to cause the problem, and jumping off the top of a 10-story building will be deadly.

I must admit, I don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

I am in favor of believing we can not violate the laws of nature without bad things happening. I think superstition interferes with rational thinking.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve never met anyone who could explain anything at all without, in some way, appealing to metaphysics or to something transcendent — in the broad sense, to God.

Does it matter to you how a person defines God? I like the concepts of logos or quantum physics, and the Creator is also good. The Aztec gods are so unfamiliar to me, I have a hard time relating to them. I believe those gods are inacting concepts that have an interesting notion of our relationship with the universe.

If anyone is familiar with the Aztec gods, I think that could make a very interesting discussion of the
demarchation problem.

So when you are sorting through many myths for God's truth, the most popular story will win. Not so different from scientists concluding what is true and what is not true by consensus.
— Athena

Well, I think there are differences, actually. Science is not a myth; it conflicts with them. You take the principle of gravity as granted because empirical evidence and scientific research showed us so. I doubt there is no consensus on the physics of gravity. Furthermore, it is a tool that helps modern scientists to do other research. Perhaps it may be a big debate inside complex scientific debates such as quantum mechanics. But they probably agree with something: not labelling their discoveries as "sacrosanct".

However, I strongly agree that myths (Odyssey, for instance) can teach us valuable life lessons. Perhaps, Homecoming nostalgia/melancholia (Ancient Greek: νόστος, nostos) is a sacrosanct pattern of conduct inherent to human psychology. — javi2541997

What is your problem with the word "sacrosanct". It is simply a concept that is too important to dismiss without good cause. However, it can be tangled with superstition involving the gods. But it can also be an understanding of a law of nature. Global warming caused by human activity is destroying life on our planet, and for me, that is too sacrosanct to ignore. I think we are more sure of this than we are sure of what gravity is.

I deleted most of my argument because it was looking more like the Mad Hatter's tea party than philosophy. What is

The Demarcation Meridian — Pieter R van Wyk

? The explanation I found says it is [an imaginary or physical line that divides territory[/quote] What does that have to do with the laws of nature? If something is imaginary, how do we get people to agree it's real? We can't even get people to agree on what is true when the facts are evident.

Who provides such concepts, and how does the birth of such a concept become a truth?

So, at least ideally I believe that all punishments should have - among their goals - the education of who is punished. Clearly, it seems that such a goal can't be reached in some cases or can't be the main goal of the punishments but it seems to me that that these situations shouldn't be 'the norm'. Quite often, it seems to me, the problem is not the 'rules' in themselves but rather the approach to them. So 'fear of punishment' and even 'punishments' can actually be good motivators to learn virtue but at the same time can never tell the whole story. The 'moral code' we are expected to follow should be somewhat linked to what is good to us. — boundless

Immediately, what came to mind while reading your reply is the word "discipline" and the Eastern philosophy regarding discipline.

Unfortunately, I can not use the AI explanation of discipline that I wish everyone understood. However, I think I can use the address to the thought and hope people use it to learn another way of thinking that is very different from how our Western, Christian culture thinks. https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+notion+of+discipline&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=eastern+notion+of+discipline&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRifBTIHCAQQIRifBTIHCAUQIRifBTIHCAYQIRifBTIHCAcQIRifBTIHCAgQIRiPAtIBCzkzMDA1NmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QX3fg88BV5Isw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I hope you see this is not an argument against what you said, but a different way of thinking. A well-disciplined child will do much better in life than an undisciplined or punished child of the West. Our vision of a punishing and rewarding God appears to be in the Last Days of this God's truth. I hope we see things differently and fulfill the hope of the New Age- a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. :heart:

the quote you gave in describing tact was more about finding the truth, the churchill quote seems more about appearances, revenge, and politics than a renewed shared understanding. The quote you described explicity requests people don't offend each other... — ProtagoranSocratist

In this discussion, I am thinking about a member of the forum whom I have chosen to ignore because he refuses to be considerate of people's feelings. He intentionally rejects the notion that tact is important.
This is not just about my feelings when I feel insulted, but the society I live in and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the kind of society I want for them.

I grew up with a very bred grandmother, and I was attracted to older people who were as virtuous as my grandmother. I experienced these virtuous people, and no one can convince me that this gentile and dignified way of life is not possible. For me, nothing is more important than doing everything I can so that a better reality is made manifest, as it was once made manifest by educated people.

I am thinking many may think I am a snob, so I must clarify that what I am saying comes from my heart. This is about love and caring, and believing we can manifest a wonderful reality if we put our minds to it.
And if I am sent to Hell because I am not Christian, oh well, I will do my best to make Hell a better place. :smile:

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s drawing a boundary between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature — calling the former mutable and the latter immutable.

I must admit, I don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve never met anyone who could explain anything at all without, in some way, appealing to metaphysics or to something transcendent — in the broad sense, to God. — Astorre

Oh, but the laws of nature are immutable! We are on our way to learning that. The pagans have always known it. If you smoke, your chances of having serious health problems increase every year you smoke. Praying to God for good health will not get the desired results. If we keep ignoring what the scientists are telling us about global warming, we will learn the hard way that the laws of nature are immutable. Believing otherwise puts a person into a superstitious frame of mind. God is not going to give us another planet to destroy.

On the other hand, I don't believe a God is rewarding and punishing us, or a Satan doing his evil thing.
I am adamant about such things because science is essential to democracy. We used to know that but replaced education for good moral judgement with education for technology so we are on the path to Hell.

Now I must run to the closest second-hand store and find some things to add to my weird clothes because the senior center is having a lunch with a Halloween theme. :grin: :fire:

You claimed that the Rules of Nature are literally "sacrosanct". However, history tells us otherwise. Yes, I agree that there are some basic notions of physics and mathematics that may be sacrosanct. But the rules of nature change, as does our knowledge. For this reason, I would be careful of labelling something "sacrosanct". The term reminds me of religious dogmas or liberation theology, which we are against, Pieter. Don't we? — javi2541997

Perhaps we should look at this disagreement with an understanding of Roman law, holding a person is innocent until proven guilty and assuring the person charged with a crime has an opportunity to defend him/her self. What is "sacrosanct" is too important to dismiss without proof that it is wrong. It is not that no one dares speak of the Earth circling the sun, but if one wants to do so, one has to prove beyond a doubt that something is or is not true. This sane way of making judgments goes to Hell when the church is fighting for its supremacy and the belief that only this religious order has God's unquestionable truths.

The problem of figuring out what is right or wrong, under Roman law, when Romans were dealing with many city-states, each having its own laws, was to take what is common between the different city-states. Christianity comes out of this Roman legal system. God's truth was what is shared in common. So when you are sorting through many myths for God's truth, the most popular story will win. Not so different from scientists concluding what is true and what is not true by consensus.

This also raises the question: why does our understanding of a so-called law of nature (including mathematics) suddenly constitute that law of nature itself? I see it somewhat differently: our formulas are not a law, but the best approximation to how it happens. And if a new, more precise description is found, we will replace it (this is consistent with Popper). — Astorre

I believe the concept of the law of nature originated in Athens and is rooted in geometry. The philosophers back then did not use the term "laws of nature" but rather the word "logos". Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe. Moral meant having knowledge of logos and good manners. We used to read children moral tales and then ask "What is the moral of that story. The correct answer is one of cause and effect.

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood, it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations, it is called 'justice.” Cicero

Cicero lived before Jesus, and he thought Judaism was a barbaric superstition, and that is reasonable considering they built their understanding of God on Sumerian stories, and they shared a notion of good and evil with Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism began as a pretty good philosophy, but sank into superstition and self-destructed, with few Zoroastrians continuing today.

What is "it" that happens?

I do not see any opposition in the understanding of tact. Both sides are about achieving good feelings.

At the moment, my head is full of a lengthy explanation of Carl Jung and the need to stop suppressing our dark side, but instead work to unite our psyche. Here is a need to stop projecting our evil onto others, creating a situation such as the world wars. Now that is the opposite of Christianity and declaring God wants us to destroy the evil enemy. I often wonder what the world would be like without a God of war.

According to AI, it is common for animals to engage in sexual behaviors with the same sex member of the group. I don't think we call them homosexual, and that could mean we do not have the language we need to discuss human rights and our sexuality. Our language and minds are shaped by a Christian perspective, even if we are not Christians. It is just part of our culture, and we mostly take it for granted. Animals do what they do without questioning if they have the right to do it. If it were not for the religious perspective, perhaps our sexuality would not become an issue of rights.

I like my grandmother's rules, because they give me a baseline for decisions that handle every situation requiring my judgment.

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.

What you do is none of my business. I have all I can do to make myself behave well. That might not be good philosophy, but it seems to work for me. I have read that Socrates' group assumed moral means knowing the laws of nature and having good manners. They also saw nothing wrong with an older man and a younger man enjoying each other's company. Sparta assumed the men would like each other more than a man would like a woman. That was an important factor in their military success.

You certainly do have social grace. That makes you a very desirable participant.

decided to delete my bad morning thought. I will leave it at, I am not a high IQ nor philosophically educated person, and I have very much enjoyed participating in this forum.

Well, it seems like in that kind of a situation (being accused of something falsely) means there is no legal recourse without some evidence of the business behaving illegally. The unfortunate reality is that alot of times people do not get punished for harming us...even though dishonest behavior can have long term disadvantages (for example, alienating people who could useful or comforting in the future) — ProtagoranSocratist

I think the situation of being wrongly accused, fired, and denied unemployment is very bad, and I can sympathize with the desire to harm those who wronged the person who was fired. What is left but revenge and a moment of feeling empowered, when all else has gone wrong, and one might feel powerless and need to act on that feeling. However, ProtagoranSocratist is correct. But how do we call up the inner strength to resist a desire for revenge?

When I experience such difficult times and don't know what to do, I draw a Virtue Card and/or check with the I Ching. Beginning with the injustice of being fired, I asked for the best way to deal with this situation and drew the card for "tact".

Tact is thinking before you speak. It is telling the truth in a way that does not disturb or offend others. It is knowing what to say and what is better left unsaid. Tactfulness is sharing your view with others in a way that makes it easier for them to hear it. This is especially important when you feel angry or upset. Tact also means knowing when to stay silent. It is telling the truth with kindness. You are as careful about others' feelings as you would like them to be of yours.

Acting on a desire for revenge is nonverbal communication and can lead to legal problems. I Ching says, "The Superior Man keeps his anger under control and is moderate in his desires".

Because I have been between a rock and a hard place many times, I know it is a whole lot easier to do the right thing when we are secure in our resources and have good support from family and friends. I would have sympathy for anyone without the resources and support, but this is all the more reason for not risking making matters worse and for clinging to the personal value by doing the right thing.

We used to think virtue and strength were synonymous. I think it would be nice if it were culturally recognized as important today. Most of us will not become part of the exclusive elite circle, but each of us can enjoy the strength of virtues.

I think philosophy can give us the grounds for a post-Christian culture that is successful.

A rigid moralism has undoubtedly painful effects on people. Of course, I have said above that painful experiences can be for the better. But, at the same time there are cases where it is evident that a rigid moralism becomes self-referential and makes the 'code of law' something more important than the persons it is supposed to be useful to. If moralism becomes an obstacle to the process to realize the good for the individual and the community it should be put into question.
For instance, if a moral system is supposed to make people more loving but the practical effects are that people become more self-centred, suspicious and so one it is right IMO to question the moral system. But this should be done in a careful way and not in an unreflecting way. — boundless

We have so many agreements that there was nothing for me to add to what you said, except to confirm that we agree: only when a person knows better can they do better. Morals without virtues is a bad thing. I think far too many of our decisions are built on notions of reward and punishment, with far too much taken for granted, assuming the wrongdoer knew better or should at least automatically know better, and therefore, must be stopped from repeating a bad action by punishing the wrongdoer. The obvious bad judgment of relying on punishment is that it does not ensure the child/person understands the wrong and has learned what would be better.

I had several pen pals in prisons, long before the internet, and it was so sad to be aware of their failure to know better, and how the conditions of prisons can make things worse. Our correction system is not wise. Especially when it goes with an amoral society with weak family values. :lol: I must laugh at myself because I am imagining getting on a war horse with all my armor and rushing out to confront this evil of ignorance. I didn't know better when I was young, and I hate dying before correcting our shared ignorance and bad judgment.

The most important information I have come across in my lifetime was a Canadian woman's explanation of why we must teach virtues. Language is vitally important. When we do not have a word for something, we know nothing about that something. Children can not be virtuous without the language of virtues, and we can not depend on their parents to teach them about something when they themselves don't even have the words for virtues and therefore, can not have virtuous thoughts. Our education made good citizenship the priority of education until 1958. Now we are smart, but we have lost our wisdom.

I am not suggesting that Catholics are more 'inherently' open to gender equality than anyone else or anything like that but I just note how our assessment can neglect these things. — boundless

I have read that, in the past, Buddhism and Catholicism were so similar that there was concern about them blending. I do not think we can properly understand the words attributed to Jesus without an understanding of Buddhism, which came out of India with Hindu influences. If there is a "word of God", according to Joseph Campbell, that God spoke to everyone, but people in different places understood His words a little differently because of the different geology of people around the world. I think we can study the history of these religions and gain an understanding of their development and the historical and political influences. I think this is essential to a study of God's truth. To study only one holy book leaves a person ignorant of so much, and this is important if we want to be rational about our notion of truth.

I think Cyrus was one of the most awesome people to have ever lived and ruled a country. This is Whoops, had to delete that!

That is important because of how the Persian religion influenced the Hebrew understanding of good and evil, and the spread of superstition, leading to the belief in demons and torpedoing the intellectual developments coming out of Hellenism. On the success of patriarchy and failure of matriarchy, he who wins the war gets to tell the story and set the rules. But the gender thing is not just about patriarchy and matriarchy, making the discussion of gender differences extremely complex. I think a Japanese geisha is the ideal of femininity by any national standards, and I would love it if, like the French, we celebrated the difference. Hare Krishna is androgynous. Hey, this could make a fun thread. All the different flavors of male and female.

Good gravy, my thoughts are going all over the place, and this is not leading to the standard of good philosophical argument.

In my humble opinion, I just think that neither 'patriarchy' nor 'matriarchy' is perhaps the best option. Indeed, it seems to me that biological sex shouldn't be thought of as a reliable indicator of the place in society that an individual should have. I wouldn't say that biological sexes do not matter at all, but they certainly seem to matter less than our ancestors seemed to believe so firmly. — boundless

This might get my head back on track. I want all decisions to be in the best interest of children. Okay, this is virtues and morals. In a patriarchy land follows the line of males. In a matriarchy, land follows the line of females. Internationally, we have reason to believe that women tend to be the better caregivers for children, and empowering them seems to benefit the children more than leaving men in charge. But I know females who are terrible mothers! :gasp: I think fathers play a very important role in raising children; however, their role may be different from the mother's role. Both a mother and a father are important, and maybe both would do better if they believed how valuable they are. I did a Google check, and there is an important connection between child rearing and philosophy.

Whoo, whoo, you stirred too many thoughts. I can handle maybe 3 concepts at a time. Too many thoughts turn my head into mush, and my mind is like a kaleidoscope, changing shapes and colors, and I can not form a coherent thought from all this sensory overload. :worry:

Note, however, how the conception of 'what the good for us is' influences the 'ideal' of life we have and how the former depends also on the 'worldview' one has.

Absolutely!

By 'libertarianism' I mean the position that equates 'freedom' with the mere 'ability to choose between different alternative'. In my view, this understanding is incomplete.

For sure, it is incomplete. As social animals, our thinking must be inclusive. As supposedly intelligent animals, our thinking needs to consider future generations.

Regarding the differences between cultures, I do think that the best explanation is actually that societies can be wrong in their practices, just like individuals can.

Yep, nations and cultures can need psychoanalysis just as much as individuals. The way nations play war games makes psychoanalysis very important.


Something that you mentioned is the middle path, balance, and harmony. As you know, it isn't all about me or all about you, but it is about us. If I am knocking myself out to be the perfect daughter, wife, mother, woman, it doesn't matter. If I don't know everyone else's idea of perfection and meet it, I am not going to get what I want, approval and acceptance, maybe even honor? I used to do some public speaking, and perhaps the most important rule is "know your audience". This is essential if the goal is to persuade others to accept new ideas. In everything we do, who do we want to please and why?

It was a real shock to me to build my life on the 1950s ideal woman image and suddenly sink to being "just a housewife". Who wants to be just a housewife? It sounded like a dirty word. My 2 1/2 years younger sister was way ahead of me. She took the career path, while I felt like a fish out of water when the change was made. For me, this has everything to do with amoralism and moralism. How fast can we change our morals and keep up with a society that is on the move? But here is the question that really bothers me- was the force of social change really better for humanity?

You wrote in favor of this and that, both being part of the truth. I often find truth is both this and that. But right now, everything is moving too fast, and I am not sure we are on the right path. I am not Christian and want to point out that Christianity is in the line of destroying the goddess and supporting the patriarchy, and I have strong feelings against all this. Many native American tribes were matriarchal, and I think that is better for mankind.

There are so many things to think about, and I wish we began with scientific thinking, not Christianity a personal God, and individuality, that can be divisive and exclusive and include harmful rationalizations. Destroying the planet for temporary benefits is not good thinking. It is not moral thinking.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living," and for me, never again having the experience of a new realization would be worse than death. My father said people avoid thinking, and that appears to be true. If it were not for the internet, and especially this forum, I would die from lack of intellectual stimulation or at least wish I were dead. In my everyday life, I do not come across many people who enjoy thinking.

There are some wonderful books about thinking, and ever since reading Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, I have regretted not fully understanding the process and better forms of thinking. But then I read another book and :gasp: Kahneman's explanation of thinking could be lacking because of a lack of emotions. I think we have been encouraged to be logical and not emotional, but that may not be the best thinking, especially when making judgments about how we should live together.

While I live to have new realizations, I am concerned about the people who appear to be excellent thinkers but who have no joy in doing so. What is up with that? :worry: It is so sad that everyone doesn't enjoy thinking and having new realizations. I think that is why Socrates said what he said.

I describe the quality of living in our era as 'chaotic' and the experience of it as 'fragmented'. Even relatively agreed-upon notions of 'reality' are in retreat. A lack of 'objectivity' or shared 'reality' is part of the declining mental health around us. — Jeremy Murray

This brings up my awareness of how much better my life is now than it ever was. What is important here is "sharing reality". I stay with people my own age because we share so much in common, and it is great when someone really knows what I am talking about and shares my values, because of having the same experience. People my age validate me, while being with younger people can invalidate me, because of a lack of shared experience. It is really invalidating when things have been changed and you ask a young person when the change was made and s/he strongly insists nothing has changed. All this person may know is what happened in the last six months, and nothing has changed in those six months.

Our No Kings Day march was marvelous because for a few hours, we were all on the same agenda.
We had a wonderful sense of unity and community, like we used to have in the annual fairs; when we showed off our produce, canning, needlework, animals, etc., and hoped to get ribbons for our effort. At the march, everyone was smiling and friendly, even the police! I think that was true across the nation. Sometimes good things can come out of adversity. Our connectedness really matters. I wish our local fair would return to the local fair it once was. We need that togetherness. And please let us all celebrate Christmas together, Christian and pagan. Can we put our togetherness first?

I know humans are predisposed to overly focus on the negative. And yet I do it constantly :( — Jeremy Murray

Might that be why the pagans and then Christians had days that brought people together? I like Empire-building games, and often they include the morale of the people. Special days hopefully bring the people who have withdrawn into the circle of celebration. I hated Christmas because of family problems, but somehow I started decorating the lobbies on each floor in a four-floor apartment building. People began expecting me to decorate so I did more and more. :lol: This very unhappy loner got sucked into a social activity, and I built an identity for myself that was not dependent on family.

If you want to work with Virtues, I highly recommend Virtues cards made by a woman in Canada. When she started, she had one set of cards and a book to go with them. Now there are virtue cards for many different preferences.
Check this link out, https://www.google.com/search?q=canada+virtue+cards+for+sale&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=Canada+virtue+cards&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgCECEYoAEyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRirAtIBCjEyMjUzajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRx1naPOkgkF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

For a while, I met with a small group of friends. We each would think of a personal problem we want to resolve, and then we blindly pick a card and share it with everyone, and say how that virtue would help us resolve the problem.

Do you or others have 'mental wellness' routines or habits that have surprised or transformed? — Jeremy Murray

Right now, the most important thing to me is Cafe 60 across the street and the Community Center, where I wash dishes on Wednesday. The rest of the days I eat at Cafe 60, not because of the food but because of the people! I think I have a theme running here. Reach out to others. Think of them and their need for people to care about them. One of the best ways to feel good is to help someone. It is amazing to me how that works and it is not just me saying that but it is a scientific fact. Yipes my alarm says it is time to for Cafe 60.

One last thing, have you tried medications? When I am down and can not get up I turn to my doctor for help. Oh and have you thought about using the mushroom that can dramatically change people's lives?

TBH, I never wanted to assume the truth of Christianity from the start in my posts, not sure why you think that. — boundless

I did not think you personally started with Christian notions, but I think it is so much a part of our Western culture that it would be unavoidable.

a rational being is truly free when he or she is freed from all 'obscurations' t — boundless

What are possible obscurations to rational thinking?

'libertarian' model which, instead, simply assert that freedom is the same as 'deliberative power' to choose among alternatives. — boundless

I don't like labels, and I am realizing that is hindering my ability to understand what you are saying. I mean, I know virtually nothing about libertarians. On the other hand, I feel strongly about the importance of learning virtues, but now I am thinking that learning virtues may be culture-bound and that this may be inadequate. Such as, I recently learned, some cannibals feel strongly about the rightness of eating their loved ones when they die. Culturally, eating people is forbidden, but to the cannibals who eat their loved ones, to not eat them is terrible. I think culture puts some limits on what we can think about.

For instance, in Buddhism Nirvana is said to be achieved when spiritual ignorance ('avidya') ceases precisely because the 'enlightened' isn't said to be deluded about what is truly the highest good for him/her. — boundless

I have listened to a long explanation of meditation and Buddhism, which makes me think that enlightenment is a totally different frame of mind from our everyday thinking. I don't think I am ready to be free of being a part of our common lives with all our social concerns.

I now believe, after having reflected upon these things, that these kinds of ideas about freedom and ethics - irrespective (of some form) of Christianity, Buddhism or even 'secularism' etc being right - make most sense and they are the only that allow us to avoid considering 'virtuous behaviour' as the result of merely following an external code which is unrelated to our own nature. — boundless

Interesting, given the Buddhist choice of disassociating from the cycle of life and death. Some days I think I am ready to do that, but I am still desiring my attachments, which give my life a personal meaning. I think I perfer the ups and downs of our lives to a state of bliss and no attachments.

So, I believe that the starting point of this kind of inquiry would be: what is good for a given human being? Considering that humans seem to be 'social animals', i.e. that human beings can't really be in total isolation from other human beings, we might think that, perhaps, relationships with others are essential for the good of a human being. So, how should people relate to each other in a way that it is good for them? — boundless

Well, what would be good for me is an end to pain and more energy, so I could do more volunteering and have greater life satisfaction. This is so far from what I think you are talking about, but, back to us being animals, our health and the amount of energy we have. plays into our decisions. It is hard to be the person I want to be when dealing with pain and having very little energy. Like many people my age, I am learning to keep my mouth shut and let the young find their own way. The way to relate to others is to be encouraging but not interfering. Wow, that is hard for me to do!

I think Bonobos might come a little closer to virtues than Chimpanzees because of the difference in their social organization. The leap from these species to humans is huge, and apparently, that is so because of the organization of our brains and social order. Science is now claiming that Neanderthals were closer to modern humans than we once thought. Why they are hidden in our genes but also became extinct is still up for debate. Was it social order or verbal skills that made the difference between Neanderthals and modern humans?

I read, in a research lab, that a Bomobo bit a researcher after saying he would do so if the worker did not correct a wrong. That is how an animal without language sets its boundaries. There is a claim that some of these animals learn enough language to communicate verbally. They are social animals with some rules determining right and wrong behavior, but not the language to be philosophical. Even horses are said to pass culture on to their offspring. I hope that discussion culture falls under the subject of ethics and morals.

We might to able to identify our major cultures and if they there are social differences in their morals and ethics. But I also think our Western understanding of Asians is not adequate for the task.

Would you like to pick up from here and say something? We might consider how different the discussion would go if we held a more scientific mindset, as opposed to assuming Christianity pretty much covers the subjects of morals and ethics, and proceeded with Protestant assumptions.

In a philosophy forum, though, caution makes sense. Most participants lack grounding in epistemology, logic, or linguistic analysis, so what passes for argument is often just speculation dressed up as insight. Honestly, you could gain more from interacting with a well-trained AI than from sifting through most of what appears here, it would at least give you arguments that hold together.
— Sam26

Which is easily remedied by cultivating good character for oneself.

People of substance don't post much on internet forums.
22 minutes ago — baker

Do you guys ever experience hypobaric hypoxia from being so high above everyone else?

I won't comment on the political part of your post because I think we're very far apart. However, in the future I can see where humans will merge with AI, so we'll probably become one with machines, probably biological machines. — Sam26

That sounds like the Sumerian notion of many gods and humans being created to serve them. I am against merging humans with machines; however, our industrial society did exactly that! And our hierarchical patriarchy has maintained humans exploiting humans. There is an excellent website explaining the ancient mythology and how the Hebrews reworked it, giving us more freedom and human dignity than the original mythology gave us.

The Industrial Age merged humans with machines. Our Industrial economy/society made humans extensions of the machines. Union workers risked their lives in a fight for better working conditions and wages when the flood of workers needing jobs made them cheap labor.

We took that a step further when we got on the path of the military-industrial complex. We see humans doing jobs, but this is a computer-driven reality, only that the computer is not made of inorganic material. The increasingly centralized computer has human components, like the Borg of Star Trek. All those workers are controlled by policies that come with the beginning of each bureaucracy/machine. The jobs are explained in detail, and the workers are dispensible because the new person who does the job will do it the same as the person who left the job. It is policy set in the past that controls the present.

Joseph Campbell, the guru of mythology, said humanity needs mythology and that Star Trek is the best mythology for our time. However, my understanding of the human computer governing us, comes from studying Public Policy and Administration at the U or O. The US adopted the Prussian models of bureaucracy and education. That is what makes the Military/Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warns us about.

Whatever, if people don't want AI running things, they need to be aware of our evolution that made us extensions of machines and now attempts to manage every aspect of our lives, just as Tocqueville warned would happen around 1830, after the French Revolution, and visiting the US.

Also, note that Christians actually recognize that this world is not (at least now) 'what is meant to be', so perhaps e.g. the inevitability of conflict with other species would be better understood in that light.
This is not to say that, of course, that many Christians didn't have a 'not so nice' relationship with nature. — boundless

:vomit: I am sorry, I am strongly opposed to using the God of Abraham religions to understand reality. It stood in the way of science and stopping, or at least slowing down, the destruction of our planet. It continues to stand in the way of science, and this has divided the US. I feel no mercy for those who bring this upon us.

:lol: There are people here who want to ban AI. If I had the power to ban something, it would be the God of Abraham religions. Starting out one's thinking with Christian mythology is problematic.

↪Moliere Much of what all of us do is "parrot." Not many people can come up with an original idea to save their life. — Sam26

That may be true, but the first person who showed up at the protest in Portland, Oregon, dressed as a frog has started a wonderful movement of being creative and fun in this moment of high tensions. I was not looking forward to the Saturday, No Kings Day march, until I figured out how to use the Mad Hatters tea party to make my statement. I am looking forward to what creative people are doing. This is such a marvelous human thing to do, and that is something to celebrate.

I asked what AI can create and it says...

AI can create a wide range of original content, including text (stories, essays, code), images, audio (music, spoken words), and video by learning patterns from vast datasets. It also creates data-driven insights through analysis and prediction, develops personalized user experiences in areas like shopping, and generates functional outputs such as spreadsheets and automated tasks, effectively acting as a powerful tool for creativity, productivity, and automation.

I really look forward to insights based on patterns, but hopefully with less human bias. I think it may do better than humans. However, I am not comfortable with giving the power to make decisions and act on them without flesh and blood human control and judgment. Like, No Kings Day is about our liberty to govern ourselves free of tyranny. I am not willing to give that up. :wink:

AI is a tool. Like a hammer, it can do good or destroy, on purpose or accidentally. — Fire Ologist

AI is like a hammer? That is like saying humans are like apes. I think we are evolved from that line of evolution, but humans have changed the planet in dramatic ways, and apes have not. The potential for AI to act on its own might make it different from a hammer.

But I genuinely don't believe using it helps anyone to progress thought further. Go ahead with the next phase, I'll be waiting on my hill of luddites for the prodigals to return ;) — Moliere

That is like saying riding horses can't be fun, when you don't ride horses. How could you know the joy of riding a horse if you don't ride? How could you experience the joy of using AI as much as I do if you don't use it? What can you know of the future that is being opened up if you withdraw from the change instead of participating in it?

This morning, I came across an AI explanation that was biased and disappointing. If 50% of the time, I was disappointed by AI explanations, I would not think so highly of it, but at the moment, I think it has enriched my life a lot. For me, it has replaced Wikipedia because it captures the explanation of a subject so concisely and is relatively free of biases that are more apt to show up with Wikipedia. I will still use and support Wikipedia, but it isn't my favorite right now. For me, the difference is like finding a better camera that produces more detailed pictures with brighter colors, or using an old Brownie camera with black and white film. :confused:

"nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

:lol: That is pretty narrow-minded. In fact, that thinking might lead to avoidable conflicts.

That "the same event might be good for a being and bad for another" hardly implies that "there are no objective statements about what is good for a given being". Indeed, even this 'relativistic statement' ( i.e. "the same event might be good for a being and bad for another") seems to be a truth that is independent for any given perspective on the matter. — boundless

The way many humans dealt with this moral conflict was to create a story where the hunted animal agreed to being killed and eaten in exchange for a benefit the humans would provide. However, the Christians have a different relationship with nature that is not so nice.

I'm wondering what it would take for a universal morality to be achieved, or if it's even possible. — ProtagoranSocratist

There is no way we can participate in the science and technology of today and still think as people did when Martin Luther and Nietzsche were alive. Martin Luther thought the witch hunts were necessary. Back in the day, people lacked science and were very superstitious. From 1100 to 1700, the Catholic church unwittingly prepared Europe for the information transformation. These are the years of scholasticism. AI defines scholasticism like this...

Scholasticism was a medieval philosophical and theological system that used rigorous logical reasoning to reconcile Christian faith with classical philosophy, especially that of Aristotle. In simple terms, it was a method of teaching and thinking that emphasized logic and debate to understand and explain religious and philosophical truths, rather than just accepting them. Key figures like Thomas Aquinas used this dialectical method to build a comprehensive understanding of the world based on both reason and revelation.

There was a serious backlash against Aristotle's logic. Francis Bacon, born January 22, 1561, and died April 9, 1626, turned the world of reasoning upside down with inductive reasoning versus Aristotle's deductive logic. Francis Bacon's inductive reasoning opened the way to modern scientific thinking, and that is a totally different frame of mind that leads to understanding creation as a process of evolution, taking the place of the Biblical creation story and believing the Bible is a collection of pagan stories starting in Sumer, not a supernatural revelation of God.

What it takes for a universal morality to be achieved is today's technology, especially the computer and the internet, and the continued spread of science. How do we know the truth? We begin with the participation of all nations, then ask the right questions and validate the facts. I say this in part because all religions share the same morality. The differences are not that great because humans are not that different from each other. Another reason I believe unity and consensus are desirable and possible is that the death of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and framing our minds with science instead of mythologies, would end conflicts that trouble us so much today. Some good has come from those religions, but so have bad things come from the religions. Ignorance leads to evil.

"Real world"—that was perhaps a less than ideal choice of words—I intended to refer to the world as being what affects us pre-cognitively via the senses and is pre-cognitively modeled by the body/brain, as well as what shows up for us as "the world of common experience". — Janus

I will never experience being Black. My understanding of the Black experience has been extremely limited to television and unpleasant accounts of the Black experience. This is so although I have a 13 year old great grand son who is Black. His experience is very limited compared to the millions of people of color and diverse economic and cultural experiences across the US. Coming from this realty of ignorance, I very much appreciate what AI has to say...

Being Black in America encompasses a complex and multilayered experience shaped by centuries of systemic racism, resilience, and rich cultural contributions. It is characterized by persistent societal challenges as well as profound achievements that have significantly influenced the nation's culture, history, and development.

.

I think we should share good information and look forward to how this can improve our reality. And I can't let this go, without saying how computers and forums are essential to our transition to a New Age made possible by our technology, desire for peace, and the end of tyranny. We are no longer in the horse-and-buggy age, knowing almost nothing of the real world beyond our little hamlet, our family, our group of friends, and what the Bible says according to our minister's understanding of it.

The irony is that the very kind of “rigorous analysis” you claim to prize is being accelerated by AI. The most forward-looking thinkers are not treating it as a toy but as a new instrument of inquiry, a tool that extends human reasoning rather than replacing it. Those who ignore this development are not guarding intellectual integrity; they’re opting out of the next phase of it. — Sam26

I so appreciate what you said! I am at a time in my life when I realize there is far more to know than anyone can know. I no longer worry about appearing to know it all. On the other hand, I am thrilled by the possibility of easily getting information with a search engine and AI. More than anything, I want to live with our wonderful new opportunity to know more about life and being human than we could ever have known in the past. My hope for humanity has greatly improved because we can share this information and make better decisions.

Well, yes such quotes are no substitute for argument, and obviously they do not belong to the one who quotes. It is all the more objectionable if the person presents the quoted passage as their own work. It's easy enough to find them out if the quote is from a prominent philosopher, whether alive or dead, Not so with copying and pasting AI generated text. — Janus

I have been lucky in getting AI explanations every time I search a subject. If I wanted to hold someone accountable for misappropriating an AI explanation, I would simply put it into the search engine, the same way the person posting from AI would get the information. It is a whole lot easier than searching books for a quote.

But I can not imagine why I would care to do that. There might be a problem with judging each other, rather than the information given. There are better reasons for riding donkeys than the reasoning for not using AI as a source of information. Using AI for information is not the same as using AI for making decisions. I think our decisions need to be made democratically.

With concern about AI making the decisions, I asked it if I should get married, and it put that decision on me, after explaining things I should consider. That might work better than Tarot cards. :grin:

That's a poor analogy. It's obvious when people are wearing makeup or wearing clothes that enhance their appearances. Property rights might be one reason to object to plagiarism—there are others. Pretending to be something you are not is one. — Janus

Poppycock, the only objection to plagiarizing that I remember is the posts objecting to someone trying to make us think s/he knows more than s/he does know.

That is a good observation. In some forums, the guys can talk terribly to each other, and when I objected, I was informed that the guys were friends and no harm was done. What you said is true, but there is a social cost to those negative names. However, humor is a funny thing. It can make something bad good. Maybe working on our sense of humor is the best way to deal with human problems.

Last Tuesday, my Scrabble group checked the official Scrabble position on using the word "slut" and to my delight, it is no longer accepted. However, Scrabble groups can agree to use offensive words if everyone agrees to do so. The group I play with agrees, if the word is going to get a high score, we can use it. However, at a Scrabble tournament, I don't think the words would be accepted.

The quality of our relationship is very important to our decisions. I would not use racially offensive or gender offensive words if there were someone in the room who could be offended.

Your post touched on so many important things. Your perspective on social change is insightful, and this might blend into philosophy. I am thinking of Socrates and his students, Plato and Aristotle, because they experienced wars, and PTSD goes with war.

I think they all believed it was essential to please the gods, and that drove Socrates to question what Athens did wrong, to caused them to lose the war with Sparta. He was a courageous and successful warrior, very much moved by a sense of duty and patriotism, but he was opposed to wars that could be avoided. I don't know if I can do this as well as you did, but we both turned to philosophy, and we both notice the change in Western society, and to some degree, Western civilization comes out of war.

You mentioned the stumbling blocks of our notion of what is manly. As a woman, I see the notion of the qualities of women as possible stumbling blocks. In a way, Spartan females had much more freedom than Athenian women, and this has a lot to do with feelings of independent strength or feelings of helplessness. I was so glad when we expanded the social expectations of females and got away from the Virgin Mary role model! Imagine being raised to please others and having PTSD with no one to rely on. Then add to that a belief in Satan and demons possessing people. Excuse me, can I leave now? This is a picture of a horror house with no exit.

:grin: Once again, I am experiencing wonderful feelings as this discussion is bringing up better reasoning and freedom from my trip through Hades that lasted a few years. How do we feel at ease with who we are, when our understanding of reality is all messed up? Our culture has been problematic for many of us. The Christians who are swooning over how much God loves us irritate me because this evangelical faith in a loving God is not what Western culture experienced for almost 2000 years. Not that long ago, God was jealous, revengeful, and fearsome, and people lived with fear of Satan and demons, too.

:flower: It is not easy being human, and I am so thankful for the better information we have today. I think our civilization needs to evolve, and that philosophy can do a better job of encouraging our evolution than religions based on pagan beliefs, not knowledge of reality.

One more thought. As we can lack information about how we come to have PTSD, so can we lack the memories that can help us. While replying to you, an important memory that has improved my life for the last 20 years came to my awareness. Maybe we all focus too much on the negative. Does counseling ever encourage good memories? Most of my I have felt love and I think the source of that was my father carrying me through the forest as he worked to shift from his WWII PTSD to home and family.

I'd love to hear your idea of conscience. — Copernicus

Well, do you know Jimmy Cricket?

Pinocchio was talked into going to a fun park instead of school, but the fun park turned into a place where children were turned into donkeys, and Pinocchio almost didn't escape.

Pinocchio was a wooden puppet, and a Blue Fairy turned him into a real boy and appointed Jimmy Cricket to help him make good decisions. A problem we have is not always knowing right from wrong. If we are lucky, we will have an uncomfortable feeling if we are considering doing something wrong, but often things are moving too fast, or we honestly believe we are doing the right thing, or we rationalize it isn't that bad, and we find out too late that it was the wrong and the consequences were that bad or worse, and then we get the uncomfortable feeling, and feelings of regret may follow. That uncomfortable feeling is like Jimmy Cricket trying to keep Pinocchio out of trouble.

Humans are pretty well programmed to be cooperative and moral, just as all social animals are programmed with social rules. But of course, things can go wrong, mostly because we don't know enough to know the right thing to do. Cicero said, “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood, it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

Today, we are very concerned about being smart, but unfortunately, we have neglected the need to develop wisdom. I think this cultural change leads to some serious problems, but at the same time, we have learned so many important things, and I hope this all balances out to a better future.