I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict. — Antony Nickles

I am curious. Can you give me an example of one of these guys personally attacking another one?

I am really wanting to know about Descartes' notions about animals being mechanical and humans being beyond what is mechanical. That should be its own thread, and if you know about that, would you please start and thread and let me know.

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

You seem to think you represent teachers. What justifies that?

What do you think of grade school textbooks before 1958, when we changed the purpose of education?

Sara H.Fahey spoke about Public Schools and American Patriotism at the 1917 National Education Association Conference about why an institution for making good citizens was also good for making patriotic citizens. She was proud of preparing the young to unionize. She was proud of educating immigrant children about American values, and that the immigrant children would learn from their parents.

My grandmother was a teacher at the time, and she felt so passionate about defending democracy in the classroom she was in her 80s, before she stopped teaching. When she had to retire, she joined VISTA and worked with migrant children. Then she volunteered in schools. When she died, I wanted to know the set of values every child learned, so I started buying old textbooks and books about education. I know, from the health textbook, the math textbook, and the reading books, that children were taught to be respectful of others, and to be considerate, and family values, and virtues, and character values.

In 1917, education for technology and vocational training were added to education, but education for good moral judgment and good citizenship remained the priority of education until 1958.

Okay, your mention of gun violence led me to see if the local school shooting was the first school shooting. To my amazement, there is a record of school shootings dating back to 1840. Each one is explained.

I think we need to be more alert when dealing with teenage males. It seems this is a rough time for teenagers and especially males. Young men who have access to weapons may not be a threat, but if they are like Kipland Kinkel, excessively fascinated with guns, bombs, death, and killing, then all weapons need to be removed. Kip struggled with evil thoughts for a long time before he flipped out.

Primitive tribes handled this with rites of passage. Perhaps that is better than ignoring a serious problem?

How to make a child into a good thinker is tricky... Trick them into thinking that learning is fun, or at least show them that the product of learning is desirable? — VagabondSpectre

Learning is a whole lot of fun. My school teacher grandmother had me draw a picture and then tell the story of the picture. She wrote my story and from then on, I believed I was a good writer. She played Scrabble with me and a card game called Flinch, then my uncle took over with Cribbage, Pool, and Chess. :grin:

My kitchen was a great laboratory when great-grandchildren visited. Baking soda and vinegar are amazing when mixed together. Filling a pan with salt water and then boiling the water out, leaves us with salt. Cooking foods that require measuring cups and spoons is a favorite way for grandmothers to teach math. And what can be more fun than nature walks?

Statistically, children who have active grandparents to visit do better.

I can't say that I've ever offered unsolicited advice to prospective parents about how they ought to raise their children, and I'm not sure how well received it would be. My guess is that I'd tell them what I did, and knowing that my children are without flaw, they should take my advice. — Hanover

Pay attention to the child's school! I don't know how we came to holding parents 100% responsible for raising children when it was a priority purpose of education to prepare our young for life and good citizenship. Our children are being destroyed and driven to suicide by their schools, communities, and online activity.

I believe the first school mass killing happened in the high school where my daughter was a student. We were new to the area and needed help because my X had abandoned us during the 1970s recession, when people were losing everything and it was next to impossible to get a job. A young man who needed help stayed with us for a while, as did many teenagers needing help, passed through our home. The school was so impersonal that no child got help.

At this time, a columnist published an article saying teachers should not have to waste their time with poor students. I was horrified and called him to discuss this. He was very proud of himself because so many teachers appreciated what he said.

The young man who entered the school ready to kill, had already killed his parents. His parents were teachers and lived in a good neighborhood, if you want to call a totally dysfunctional neighborhood a good neighborhood. His older sister was a model student and a good daughter. What could go wrong?

The principal was made aware of the fact that the young man was having a problem, and the principal in a school where teachers should not have to waste their time on poor students, mishandled the crisis that was brewing. A couple of days later, several students were shot. I think one teacher and a couple of students were killed. So much for teachers not having to waste their time on poor students.

Around this time, two of my daughter's friends ended up in prison for killing another female friend in a Satanic ritual. I think we are struggling to make our schools and children safe, and I think a return to preparing the young for life and good citizenship could turn things around. Between now and then, we need to be more realistic about what a parent can do, when our schools are no longer helping the parents raise the children, because the schools are preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values. The schools are a very important part of the problem and the solution. Parents can not prepare their children for life in a culture where people do not know values and do not what to help the children.

But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.) — Wayfarer

YES! Our times are a little tenser than I would like. And as I sit here with books about the history of education, and a memory of my grandmother and her generation, I am thinking we might learn something from the past. We don't have to reinvent this wheel, but we need to know the power of education and what war and technology have to do with changing education. It isn't just about me, but the whole nation. Possibly the whole world. Young men learning to make bombs may not be as important as learning about life and our cultural experience of ourselves.

Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?

Begging your pardon, of course. — bongo fury

I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules?

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

Okay in the weeks I have been gone, I was working on a thread about the history of education, and in ancient times, education was mostly about behavior. The best way to present this is to present that history. There is nothing I would enjoy doing more than discuss the history of education, but I am cowering in the corner, begging not to be hit. I want to be more cautious this time. The discussion would be good only if that is what others also want. It just is not fun if the only thing others want to do is prove me or others wrong.

You gave me a lot to think about. I migrated from this forum to the history forum because I wanted to discuss things from a historical point of view with people who knew the history. I gained a lot, but it deteriorated and became so unpleasant I am thankful for this refuge. Rarely have I had a problem with the people who post here, because the people here are thinkers, they are not king of the hill, I have to take you down, players. If one does not want to get knocked around like a football player, perhaps that person shouldn't play football.

Hum, interesting :nerd: . Repeatedly, an individual has made an important historical discovery and been crushed by those in seats of power, preventing an advancement in history for many years. I don't think the same thing happens in philosophy. We get that my point of view may not be the same as yours. We may argue our point of view without attacking others for their point of view. The last straw in the History forum was someone refusing to accept information about what the Twelve Tablets have to do with Roman education because those Tablets are not with us today. All we have are written records about them. The guy had zero interest in exploring what we can know from the records. He just wanted to prove me wrong based on the fact that we do not have the original Tablets. How stupid. What do these guys do? Look for posts they can argue against, even when they care nothing about the subject?

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong?

Chimps and cats and other animals are curious. I don't think a God created humans. I think we evolved from an ape like animal and that we would make better decisions if we built our beliefs on science rather than mythology.

How can ignorance be bliss? — MoK

AI says

"The saying "ignorance is bliss" suggests that not knowing certain things can lead to a more peaceful and worry-free state of mind."

Now add to this that there is a God who wants the best for you, and he will protect you and give you what you ask for. And he will do the same for all deserving people.

Now what can possibly go wrong?

Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil. We can realize that something is good when it is pleasing, and in the same manner, we can realize that something is evil when the person is suffering. Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. Morality, therefore, is about realizing what is right (what we should do, good or evil) and what is wrong/bad (what we should not do, good or evil). Humans are not perfect, judge or criminal, for example; therefore, we should leave room for their ignorance as well when it comes to justice. Justice is the ability to realize what the judge should command. The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

What is evil other than a word? Like ignorance is an evil, but it doesn't always lead to suffering. Ignorance can be bliss.

Cultural norms whose violation is commonly thought to deserve punishment – here, “moral norms” - are present in all societies. And almost all people, except psychopaths, have a moral sense that motivates them to act unselfishly in common circumstances, to punish immoral actions by others, and experience feelings of shame and guilt when they perceive they have acted immorally. — Mark S

Are you asking if Epstein and Trump have a sense of social morality?

Plato gives us a story related to your question.

[/quote]The Ring of Gyges /ˈdʒaɪˌdʒiːz/ (Ancient Greek: Γύγου Δακτύλιος, Gúgou Daktúlios, Attic Greek pronunciation: [ˈɡyːˌɡoː dakˈtylios]) is a hypothetical magic ring mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2:359a–2:360d).[1] It grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Using the ring as an example, this section of the Republic considers whether a rational, intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice would nevertheless act justly.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Gyges does terrible things when he is invisible, and we are led to believe he is getting away with it, but in the end, things go bad for Gyges, and that brings an end to his wrongdoing.

It is like smoking and global warming. We know we should not be driving or flying with harmful fuels, and we should not smoke, but we live in a state of denial and rationalize what we are doing so we can do it even though we know it is bad.

The Greeks argued about whether something is good because the gods say it is good, or bad if the gods say it is bad, or do the gods say something is good or bad because it is good or bad? What are the consequences? Logos, reason the controlling force of the universe. What is the cause and effect? I believe morals are a matter of cause and effect.

I asked google for what Einstein said about imagination and got this AI response...

Albert Einstein famously said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." He also stated, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.". These quotes highlight the power of imagination in expanding understanding and fostering progress, surpassing the boundaries of what is already known.

Well-known inventors, including Einstein, found the answer to a problem in a dream.

Yes, some inventions and discoveries have been inspired by dreams. Several famous examples include Elias Howe's sewing machine, Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table, and Kekulé's benzene ring structure. These individuals reported experiencing a dream or dream-like state where the solution to a problem or the structure of something complex became clear.

Linguistically empathy implies a lack of differentiation between the two subjects whereas sympathy or compassion implies a retention of the differentiation between the two subjects. — Leontiskos

I love linguistics and learning the origin of words.

What is Empathy? The origin of the word empathy dates back to the 1880s, when German psychologist Theodore Lipps coined the term “einfuhlung” (literally, “in-feeling”) to describe the emotional appreciation of another's feelings. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5571783/#:~:text=What%20is%20Empathy%3F,emotional%20appreciation%20of%20another's%20feelings.

The word has Greek roots

Origin
em and pathos

The prefix "em-" in words like "embolden" or "embrace" comes from the Latin prefix "in-" (meaning "in" or "into"), which is then assimilated to "em-" before labial consonants like "b" or "p", according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. So, "em-" itself isn't a root word, but rather a variant of "en-" used in specific contexts.

"Pathos" itself comes from the Greek word meaning "suffering" or "feeling."

I think we can have sympathy for another without having empathy, because we can think something is bad without feeling the pain.

Like homelessness- I think everyone can think that being homeless is undesirable, but having the experience of being homeless triggers many thoughts that come with feelings. Fear, fatigue, low self-esteem, and powerlessness. That is a little more than the inconvenience and discomfort of not having a home.

I am raising this area of debate with a view to thinking about the nature of compassion. The author of the article also raises the question, 'Does Empathy Always Lead to Sympathy? I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? Is it leading to moral indifference and based on the philosophy of the objective idea of the importance of 'emotional detachment as an ethical ideal? What do you think about the ideas of sympathy, empathy and its relevance for life?. — Jack Cummins

Before the Internet, I corresponded with prisoners. Prisoners wanting letters could put their name and address in a motorcycle magazine. So this one guy writes to me...

"You may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad untile you eat it."

And remember Spock in Star Trek. Spock was brought back to life, and Doc asked him what it was like to be dead. Spock replies by asking him if he has ever been dead. Doc answers that he was never dead, so Spock tells him that he has nothing to reference to. In other words, the only way to know an experience is to have that experience.

When I studied gerontology at the local university, I thought I knew about growing old. :lol: All that book learning did not prepare me for the experience of being old, and there is no indication that our doctors understand the meaning of struggling with pain and tiredness and unpleasant physical changes. They know the words and dictionary definitions, but not the experience.

All that is different from question about

I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? — Jack Cummins

That is more a psychological matter than philosophical. Number one, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE! For our own self-defense, we have to shut down because it is way too much to engage with everyone on a personal basis every day of the week. We can not be intimate with everyone in our lives and hold most people as personally distant as we can, so the checkout clerk is part of the store, not part of our lives. This is way more mechanical than family relationships. We stand on a crowded elevator with strangers we ignore. If we do not learn to tune people out, we burn out. This is especially so for professionals in caregiving positions. For example, I can not work in a nursing home because I can't handle all that pain. I gave up a volunteer job when I realized there was nothing I could do for homeless mothers needing shelter. Even rescue dogs need to find living people. The need is so strong for dogs, the handlers will intentionally give the dog a living person to find.

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world: — AmadeusD

I think if you want me to read what you say, you'd better say it in a way that makes me want to read it.

Interesting. It was Nietzsche and Sartre who inspired me to explore philosophy more deeply. I was immersed in post-modernity at university given my age and areas of study. The humanities in the 90s were flooded with these ideas. — Jeremy Murray

And look at us today. I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. It appears to me that we have pretty much replaced the Greek philosophers with German philosophers.

for sure, it seems elitist, to argue that some people are better equipped to make moral decisions for others. — Jeremy Murray

Why is that elitist? For sure, someone who has been through med school will be a better doctor than someone who doesn't even know the anatomy of our bodies.

I think life experience makes some people better at determining moral behavior than others. If the most important people in someone's life are drug-dealing gang members, this person's moral judgement will not be the same as mainstream society's moral judgement.

Science makes some people better at determining the moral care for the planet, and also can make a person better at judging human morality.

Do you agree that means returning to education for good moral judgment and ending leaving moral training to the Chruch?

I keep harping on this because our present reality seems to prove the Bible right about the end of times. We are technologically smart but not wise. Bad decisions have gotten us here, and this is not the first time people have believed they were living through the end of time. We have some choices: ignorance and immorality, or education and using reason to make moral decisions.

Bottom line, I think we need to talk about morality and why education is essential to our liberty. I have been harping about this for many years. Forums may stress our rights, but our rights require a sense of responsibility, and young people do not seem to want responsibility, only rights. We need to grow up and hopefully grow in wisdom.

In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
Wolfy48 — Wolfy48

I very strongly appreciate the importance of your question. Making something like eating your neighbor's children taboo may be preferable to laws. For those of us who value liberty, we may prefer taboos over laws because a taboo prevents undesirable actions better than laws.

An authority on this is Edward T Hall

Edward T. Hall's concept of "cultural taboos" refers to the unspoken rules, norms, and behaviors that are considered unacceptable or forbidden within a particular culture. These taboos often operate below the level of conscious awareness, shaping our interactions and understanding of social situations. Hall's work highlights how these taboos can create misunderstandings and challenges in intercultural communication. https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+t+hall+taboos&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=edward+t+hall&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgkIARBFGDkYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEC4YgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyDQgHEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxOTUwNmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QUEZpQ7pA-1Jg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If a genie granted me a wish, I would wish everyone had a good understanding of taboos, why they are important and how they work.

Taboos are social prohibitions or avoidances, often with religious or cultural origins, that prevent individuals from engaging in certain actions or behaviors considered harmful or offensive. They function to maintain social order, protect individuals and groups, and reinforce group identity and cohesion.
Elaboration:
Social Control:
.
Taboos help regulate behavior by setting boundaries on acceptable actions and expressions.
Protection:
.
Taboos can protect individuals from dangerous or undesirable situations, either physical or emotional. For example, a taboo against eating certain foods could protect a community from food poisoning. more at https://www.google.com/search?q=the+function+of+a+taboo&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQkzMDk1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdBF3mbb-qQD&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But freedom of speech and freedom of expression? — Wolfy48

What you are saying is like starting a fire in August and walking away.

I am a woman, and as such, I am strongly against media and games of violence and especially violence against women, such as the offensive games I am offered when I attempt to play solitary online, where females are chained to a wall and struggling to get loose. How is that not condoning the voyeuristic behavior and feeling, that some people have when imagining such an act, and what is to stop someone from taking this a step further when we have socially condoned what should be taboo.

On the other hand, I have read some awful stuff in history books, such as tortures and horrific ways of killing people that have been used in the past. :rofl: I was feeling very superior to a male friend who was enjoying a violent TV show, until I realized what I was reading in a history book was worse. I think it would be very wrong to sanitize history.

Now, back to the question, how can we have media with totally unacceptable behavior and not trigger some people to go from voyeurism to a real-life experience? Should we ignore that some mentally unstable people are triggered to act on taboo impulses?

In a class about personal power, I watched a big, tough biker break down in tears when he explained his violent past and how this is a socially motivated behavior because that is what big, bad bikers do. Today, thanks to our misguided freedom of speech, we have policemen who are no better than the criminals. We are teaching that this is what powerful men, manly men, sexy men do. It is how to be a good man and a good Nazi or biker, or soldier, or whatever. This is your wildfire and our social failure to keep the fire under control. That is a failed civilization because of the growing number of poorly socialized people.

Hey Athena - yes, education goes hand in hand with political freedom.

You can't truly have one of them without truly having the other.

If the things your are taught are controlled and censored, you don't really get an education for sake of your own mind, but instead get indoctrination to control your mind, and so no freedom. If you are not educated, you can't easily identify and sift through your choices, to make a truly free choice.
And if you are not free in the first place, you can't seek to learn the things you alone can identify need to be learned.

Freedom demands we learn more. Learning more demands that we free ourselves and build a freer, more self-determining, mind. — Fire Ologist

You said that so well. I wish schools had statues or at least a picture of the Statue of Liberty to keep the connection between learning and liberty alive. She holds a torch for the enlightenment that comes with learning, and in her other hand is a book.

However, today we also need a reminder of what good moral judgement has to do with liberty and justice. Education for technology is like Pandora's box. We have high school boys who can make bombs, but also who can not manage their emotional/social experience. And the sexual scene has pushed everything over the edge of insanity, with good Christians insisting they don't want anyone teaching "their children" morals, thinking only of their own children and not the thousands of young people who are also growing up in our schools. Children who need guidance because we were not born knowing good from evil (concepts), nor are we born with the thinking skills to have good judgment.

We must understand we can not

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. — Wolfy48

without preparing the young for this freedom.
That surely leads to appearing to prove the Christian notions of Satan and being born in sin and the evil nature of humans. We must replace such mythology with the science of human nature and the humanities to have good moral judgment and not superstition and anarchy leading to chaos and destruction.

I agree that education is good, and leads to better decisions, but that education should something that people are able to explore on their own to form their own opinions. If the education about the state is coming only from the state, that will bias people and will almost certainly result in an authoritarian state. If the state controls education, who has the education to control the state?

I just don't see the value in the point of "You are either taught to support what we want, or you are considered uneducated and silenced." Well, I do see the value if you're a dictator or a pervasive authoritarian state, but if you are standing for a liberal democracy, that really seems counter-intuituve. — Wolfy48

Oh please, no one is going to look for something they know nothing about. That is not possible. When is the last time you went into a store and bought the best thing a human being can have, given you don't even know it exists or is needed?

Ask people what the best virtues are. I would be surprised if many people named even one virtue. I think young people may not know what a virtue is, and you tell me they should explore this information on their own. It ain't going to happen until they know what virtues are and why they are important.

Can you name 10 characteristics of democracy? In my experience, asking people to do that results in them being very angry with me. I would not know the characteristics of democracy if I didn't have the grade school Democracy Series textbooks. I found these books in a bookstore because I knew we once taught our national values, and I looked for a book explaining them. :lol: That put me on a life path I was not expecting.

No, no the education I am talking about does not bias people. We used the Conceptual Method of education. Teachers were told not to pay too much attention to names and dates, but rather to focus on concepts. Under this system, the student may totally disagree with the teacher and get a good grade based on their understanding of the concept.

We taught children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. However, with education for technology, knowing the right answer has nothing to do with a concept, and it is the only way to get a high grade, because all answers are only right or wrong. And boy, does this education lead to belligerent people! And with Bush Jr.'s No Child Left Behind Act, teachers were preparing children to pass the test so their school wouldn't lose funding. That is what makes the US score very low on education when compared to the rest of the world. We replaced the Conceptual Method with the Behaviorist model.

The behaviorist model, or behavioral learning theory, suggests that learning occurs through interactions with the environment, primarily through conditioning (reinforcement and punishment). It emphasizes observable behaviors and external stimuli over internal mental processes. Key figures associated with this model include John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, and Ivan Pavlov. AI

For years, we have taught children as we train dogs. That justifies your concern. That is why I am always trying to talk about education! Teaching a child how to think is different from the Military Industrial Complex education we have had since 1958.

So you wish to silence the uneducated? That seems very... uhhhh.... bad? No offense but to me everyone should have a voice, not just those you deem "educated" — Wolfy48

I don't think I said the ignorant should be silenced. However, neither should ignorance be ignored.

"Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy" -- ↪Athena

Hm... I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech?

Please keep in mind, I argue for better education. That is how I argue for liberal democracy.
That goes with associating human ignorance with animals being unleashed from a zoo. At some point, Socrates explains our question should not be what is, but what should be. A liberal democracy coming out of the Enlightenment is a dream of what can be. We can not silence the ignorant, but we can encourage a remedy for ignorance, and we can work on manifesting a culture that is better than the one we have now.

I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy...

What did I say that speaks of suppressing those with a different point of view? My goodness, there is so much I don't know; it would be foolish for me to act as though I can judge all things, and I should have the power to force my will on others.

Tonight, I called my local TV station to object to one-sided reporting of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Excluding the opposite point of view at this time in our history threatens our freedom of speech. I have to call attention to this error from time to time, or our news station gets lazy and goes with the popular story and ignores the less available opposite side of the story. I must compliment our local news because in the past, they have put in the extra effort when I have objected to the exclusion of the other side.

As Obama said a couple of weeks ago, you and I have to do something if we want to keep the great country we inherited. Restricting our political activity to our duty to vote is not enough. If the masses are left ignorant, they will make bad decisions, and that can destroy the democracy with liberty that we inherited. Our local newspaper was called the Register Guard because back in the day, reporters thought it was their duty to keep us well informed, so we could make good decisions. That will not happen if we don't ask for it.

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible. — Fire Ologist

Ah, what is common sense? How does it become common?

How about a return to civics for high school students and health books that prepare first graders for civics in high school? Education for technology has manifested a nightmare for a nation that is supposed to stand for liberty and justice.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, say whatever they want, and express themselves however they want. — Wolfy48

:scream: I can not agree with that much freedom, for such freedom leads to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, it leads to a dictatorship and totaleran state. Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy.

Especially, freedom of expression is problematic because that can mean unacceptable acts of violence.

On the other hand, I have heard in India it is a given that when speaking of one thing, you speak of its opposite as well. If we also held this understanding, increased knowledge could get better results than what I see in the US today. Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose.

Only that there must are alternatives to capitalist, money-based economy and one of those needs to prevail before all that moral, logical, fair and democratic stuff can have any chance of survival. — Vera Mont

I am sorry, I do not agree. If people are to have good moral judgement, we must have education for good moral judgement as we once had. Giving people charity without expecting something from them is harmful. However, along with the education, we need Industry that uses the Deming model and that is totally different from the autocratic model.

Ancient Athens placed a strong emphasis on morality and its citizens' commitment to the well-being of the city-state. This included a belief in civic duty, the importance of moral virtues, and a focus on intellectual and cultural development. Athenians believed that their private needs were intertwined with the needs of the community, leading to a willingness to sacrifice and restrain their passions for the preservation of Athens. AI

We need to feel valuable and that we belong. I would focus on creating opportunities for that, as Roosevelt did.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, strongly believed that a good economy depends on morality.

The problem is not money. Spartar determined what people needed and it provided that. It had almost complete control over everyone. Money would have given them freedom to decide what they wanted and, more importantly, freedom to think and act for themselves.

Let me start off by saying that the republican censorship is nowhere near the amount of censorship the democratic party underwent in the last 12 years of being in power. However , with the extreme rise of political power that Elon Musk has as he now owns one of the biggest political platforms (X) as well as his very public support of Trump with glowing endorsements and a ton of money. I sense that this is the start of something dangerous, — Samlw

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and we stopped doing this when we replaced an education based on the humanities with education for a technological society with unknown values. This, unfortunately, has led us to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, a dictatorship follows. Losing freedom of speech is just one step in preventing liberty.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was sure that morality is essential to a good economy. But we are not born knowing morality. It is something we must learn, and leaving moral training to the Chruch is a very bad idea! But that is what we have done. Now, good Christians are screaming they don't want anyone teaching their children morals. Oh really? And how about the boy across town whose parents encourage him to want guns and to use them? You know the student who kills teachers and other students, and the 23-year-old who commits mass murder to make his moral statement, and the copycats to follow.

Bottom line- Jefferson and Adam Smith were right. If we want liberty, we have to learn virtues and good moral judgment. Only then can we have liberty and government by reason, instead of authority above us trying to control things that are spinning out of control.

I will stand with my argument that a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I know about the Venus project. What is your point?

I revisited Kohlberg's stages of moral development recently. I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage.

Conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. They talk about "justice" and then burn cities and punish good Samaritans. They are for feminism, but refuse to define what a woman is. So, the left has no genuine moral beliefs; all their beliefs are only verbally espoused in order to try to win the approval of other leftists. — Brendan Golledge

Huh? There is no left or right, us or them division of the 6 different stages.

Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages of moral development, categorized into three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. These stages are: 1) Obedience and Punishment Orientation, 2) Self-Interest Orientation, 3) Interpersonal Accord and Conformity, 4) Authority and Social-Order Maintaining Orientation, 5) Social Contract Orientation, and 6) Universal Ethical Principles Orientation. AI

The 6th level is the highest, and we can trace that back to Athens, Greek philosophers, and the concept of logos. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech. Conservatives are more likely to be stuck at the first level of obedience and punishment because they tend to rely on the Bible and ignore science or the pursuit of happiness, which is the pursuit of knowledge and is essential to a democracy, you know, rule by reason.

Our liberty is defended by following the law, and if one is not in agreement with a man-made law, then the responsible thing to do is to change the law. This means arguing that the man-made law is not compatible with the universe. So, while the Bible can be used to defend slavery, we can determine through logic that a society is much healthier when everyone has liberty and justice.

I agree with you both. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. I believe that something is beauty. Beauty can be manifested in a man, a woman, or a Grecian urn. And if the beautiful is also good, then love is the love of the beautiful and good. My question is, what is the nature of the beautiful and good that is beloved? — GregW

Here is what AI has to say.....

In ancient Greek philosophy, "good" (agathos) and "beautiful" (kallos) were closely intertwined, often considered aspects of a single ideal called "Kalos Kagathos," meaning "beautiful and good". This ideal emphasized a balance of inner and outer excellence, encompassing both virtue and physical beauty.

This would also go with notions of good music. Here is what AI has to say...

Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed in the power of music to shape character, educate, and even influence societal well-being. They saw music as having ethical power, arguing that specific musical modes and styles could influence emotions, character, and even the development of good citizens.

I want to say this thinking is very dependent on words. Without a word for a concept, we can not think about the concept. Linguistic differences separated Rome and the Greeks, and some of us believe the Greek culture in areas like Athens was superior. So Kalos Kagathos is a mix of good and beauty.

Another way to look at this is through science, and what proportion has to do with recognizing beauty. Here is what AI has to say.....

Proportion, particularly when measured by the "golden ratio," is a concept that has been used to describe beauty across various fields, from art to architecture to even facial aesthetics. The Golden Ratio, approximately 1:1.618, is often seen as the most aesthetically pleasing proportion, and its application can be found in many works of art and design.

You are saying these are parts of love. But what is love as a whole? In what way is love to be distinguished from its parts? — GregW

Love is hormonal. This is what AI has to say.....

The term "love hormones" often refers to hormones involved in social bonding, emotional connection, and feelings of pleasure and attraction. Specifically, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin are key players in the experience of love and attraction.

We can stimulate the production of these hormones by doing kind things for others, nursing a baby, running on a path. Don't believe me? this is what AI says.....

Running, along with other forms of exercise, can significantly impact the release of hormones in the body, including those associated with feelings of pleasure, connection, and well-being. Specifically, running can boost endorphins, dopamine, and oxytocin, which contribute to the experience of the "runner's high" and overall mood enhancement.

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

Thank you. I believe you are correct. I think we have underestimated the importance of nurturing and the people who do the nurturing. This is what AI has to say...

Leaving a baby alone in a crib for extended periods, especially without interaction, can negatively impact their development and ability to form healthy attachments, potentially leading to emotional and behavioral issues. While it's natural for parents to need time for themselves and to adjust to a new routine, neglecting a baby's need for interaction and emotional connection can have detrimental consequences.

Indeed, I work at delaying it. I am still delighted to learn new things. My current book is "The British Are Coming: From Lexington to Princeton". I've heard American history since 7th grade, but now I'm finding the (new) gory details of the revolution from both British and American POVs fascinating. It took 78 years to get here, but I'm glad to have arrived. — BC

I am 78 too, and know what you mean about getting more meaning out of books than we once did.

They could fathom a universal basic income.
Everywhere it's been tried, the results were positive, even though most trials have been too small a sample to change a community. People don't sit around drinking beer: they learn things, try things, start things, provide services to others and make an effort to earn their neighbours' respect. They stay in school longer, commit fewer crimes and have fewer health problems. Every instance I know of that a larger-scale pilot was initiated, the next conservative administration cancelled it. — Vera Mont

Native Americans had a domestic economy and a belief system of caring for the earth. I don't think I know enough about economics to say more. However, believe systems are important.

When the land holds resources, should these resources be viewed as shared or private? I grew up in California, aware of gold mining towns becoming ghost towns. This is nuts! Gold brings money into the neighborhood, and this leads to the value of land rising, and stores and services moving in, and everything is going great until the resource is exhausted, and then everyone's investments in the community crashes, and people move away. Shouldn't the money of the first resource be set aside to invest in an industry that will replace the first source of income, protecting everyone's investments?

I like to think morals are a matter of cause and effect. As long as we think in terms of private ownership instead of shared ownership, we will have an immoral economy because everyone's investment is unprotected.

Greeks tried different economic forms, and I think an economy based on farming, seems to do better under private ownership. However, a gold mine should not be privately owned, nor water and other naturally given resources. Industry needs to be a shared endeavor. I am not sure but just thinking out loud.

Spell check doesn't like me speaking of "community crashes"- and wants that to be one crash. But I see the community as many private investments and all of them crashing in a ghost town.

Nobody ever said that the desire for the beautiful and the good makes the world go round. Of course, "love" requires an object. Free-floating objectless love is... what? — BC

That is an interesting observation about beauty. However, I think free-floating objectless love is enhanced by beauty. Like when I walk along the river on a sunny day, I can not help but be overwhelmed by a good feeling and feel gratitude for this experience. Beautiful, sacred places stir the feeling that all is well and manifest a feeling of joyfulness. That is not born out of desire but the opposite, appreciation of what is experienced.

"Everyone sees that love is a desire, and we know also that non-lovers desire the beautiful and good. Now in what way is the lover to be distinguished from the non-lover?" — GregW

I do not agree with that statement because I experience love as a given. Walking along the river on a beautiful sunny day can intensify that feeling of love. I feel loved simply because I feel love. I can totally relate to the Christian notion that God is love, even though I think the Biblical explanation of God. Satan and sin are messed up. Believing in a personal God has unpleasant consequences, necessitating deifying Jesus as a personal savior.

I don't know how it is for others, but when I was young, I was much more needy than I am now. I would expect a person's notion of love to change with age.

The conclusion here is that there are gradations of free will, of choice, from particular to absolute, depending on our preferences/values.

Is this a good analysis? — bert1

uh no not necessarily. someone can of course have reasons for choosing something that isn't their preference. — flannel jesus

I will say yes, there are degrees of free will. Some people have a lot of self-awareness and others have none. How much free will we have depends on how self aware we are. Also, the greater the degree of empathy, the greater our reasoning and therefore, our free will. In general the boarder our consciousness is, the greater our reasoning and the greater our reasoning is, the greater our free will.

I chose this because I think it is right, rather than I chose this because I feel a desire for it.

You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory. — praxis

What does that mean? I just posted Deming's points for making better products and creating a better work environment. It is not half-baked. During the Great Depression, he tried to get Industry in the US to use his model and our autocratic Industry refused his model, so Franklin Roosevelt set out to regulate Industry from the federal government level, increasing the autocracy of our democracy. While Deming's model increases democracy and makes it better. That is also better for families because it is more humane and works to improve everyone and everything.

Because the US rejected his model, he went to Japan after the war and taught his model to the Japaness who than proceeded to out compete us for world markets. Today when people talk about what kind of car to buy, they talk about Toyota and Subreu, not Ford of Crysiller. Our high-tech electronics make Japan great because they are the ones putting out the best products.

Using the Deming model is better for families than the autocratic model. If our schools prepared us for a democracy and our Industry used the democratic model, our Democracy could be great and could manifest the Enlightenment dream of a better life for everyone.

It wasn't about your view of the world. (I'm familiar with your history of good works and civic improvement.) But I did have a problem with
Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers.
— Athena — Vera Mont

But don't you see I am one of them! Don't you get how valuable we become when there are not enough people to do what needs to be done, but when there are more than enough people and they must compete against each other, then is when we feel pushed out and unneeded. Some of us are givers and excellent workers, but we are not intentionally competitive. Because we are not competitive, we are losers, and people look down on us and do not see our value. If others do not see our value, on what can we base a good opinion of ourselves? It is a downward spiral, and it can be next to impossible to get into a positive frame of mind. Life can become overwhelming, and that means being dysfunctional.

Jobs as we knew them are disappearing fast. A living wage for all is an impossibility already; in 15-20 years (always assuming this civilization keeps operating that long), gainful employment will be the norm for only about half the adult population. Very large adjustments must be made in that time to avoid collapse. Adjusting to a realistically envisioned future is not the direction in which I see America heading atm. — Vera Mont

We have agreement. I am horrified, even though Trump says we must have industry, when people speak of jobs, they are talking about a few good-paying jobs that require a college education, not employment for people who are not college minded. If we want everyone working, we must create simple jobs and make the work place a desirable place to be.

Our industry is based on the autocratic model, and that is very bad for our families and democracy and in general, our character. It creates inequality and authority over the people. If we want to make the US great we need Deming's model for Industry. Here are some of the points...

6. Institute Training on the Job: Provide on-the-job training to equip employees with the knowledge and skills they need to improve their work.
7. Institute Leadership: Focus on leadership, which encourages collaboration, understanding, and a coaching approach.
8. Drive Out Fear: Create a work environment where employees feel safe to share ideas and ask questions without fear of retribution.
9. Break Down Barriers Between Staff Areas: Eliminate departmental barriers and encourage cross-functional collaboration.
10. Eliminate Slogans, Exhortations, and Targets for the Workforce: Avoid using slogans and exhortations that can create a hostile environment.
11. Eliminate Numerical Quotas for the Workforce and Numerical Goals for Management: Avoid setting numerical quotas that can lead to poor quality.
12. Remove Barriers That Rob People of Pride of Workmanship: Eliminate barriers that prevent employees from taking pride in their work, such as inadequate tools or a lack of recognition.
13. Institute a Vigorous Program of Education and Self-Improvement: Encourage continuous learning and improvement through education and self-improvement programs.
14. Put Everybody in the Company to Work Accomplishing the Transformation: Make quality improvement everyone's responsibility. https://www.google.com/search?q=14+points+of+deming+in+quality+management&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=points+of+Deming+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgCEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCggBEAAYChgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAcQABjvBTIHCAgQABjvBTIKCAkQABiABBiiBNIBCjExNDYxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBXPu3B_Be_i6&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8