1 = 3 — Agent Smith

I think we need to think of geometry and the Triad.

"The Triad is the form of the completion of all things." Nichomachus of Gerasa (c. 100 A.D., Greek - philosopher and mathematician.

"All things divided into three." Homer (Ninth-eighth century B.C. )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVu_JPj7v6A

Don't sweat it. It's just religion. It's not meant to be taken literally or rationally. The concept of the trinity is meant to be a sort of brain teaser - the contemplation of the trinity is merely a practice that helps one to reduce dependence on reason. It is only for people interested in cultivating their religious faith.
— Merkwurdichliebe

Nice! I recall saying that any book, the Bibilia Sacra included, that makes the reader go huh, WTF? is either many or one giant Zen Koan(s), meant to evoke :chin: (deep thought) then :confused: (aporia) then :smile: (ataraxia) — Agent Smith

Christians were killing each other over the belief that Jesus is God or the Son of God. If Jesus is not God there is a very serious problem. The trinity would be three gods and not one. The Greeks had no problem with a trinity of god, but Romans didn't have the necessary word or concept for that. It took a while to create and spread a Roman word/concept for a trinity of a god. I am rather surprised that the argument has come up again.

The modern debate seems to be having trouble with "spirit". What is it? It seems we can imagine a God and a Jesus, one as Father and the others as Son, but spirit? Isn't Satan, demons, and angels spirit?
Is our soul a spirit? Kind of like water is a solid, liquid, and gas.

Why would assume I am the only one to survive? If I survived I am quite sure others have as well. I am not sure my first effort would be to find others because my first thought is to preserve information on the chance others survived and will need that information. Other priorities would be sending out a radio signal and a light signal on the chance other survivors will hear or see it and will come. Of course, to do that, I must have electricity. I pray I can find information for maintaining my source of energy. If I am close to a nuclear plant, I must be sure it has water because it will melt down and make the area inhabitable if it is not cooled with water.

I worked alone at night as a janitor and I have talked to things and myself ever since. Everything we use, works better when we talk to it. :lol: I would give more thought to a sense of reality that people had when they thought everything has a spirit. I am so sure that is wrong. It goes with believing our purpose is to keep nature healthy. That is I would work on my relationship with everything around me, and I think I would gather mannequins for dinners and meetings. What a wonderful opportunity to create an imaginary ideal reality.

Bottom line, I would be very busy. Question, do any animals survive? Keeping plants and animals alive can be a sense of purpose and having a sense of purpose is motivation to live.

Before science/philosophy: A human was simply someone who had easily recognizable, relatable physical features, spoke a language, and could think reasonably well.

After science/philosophy: No such clarity or perhaps, more accurately, an exposé of our muddled, wooly thinking. — Agent Smith

Before science/philosophy: A human was simply someone who had easily recognizable, relatable physical features, spoke a language, and could think reasonably well.

After science/philosophy: No such clarity or perhaps, more accurately, an exposé of our muddled, wooly thinking. — Agent Smith

Long ago I read there was no superstition in the beginning of human consciousness. Like animals do not imagine things, as far as we know. The earliest people were too busy surviving to start imagining things like gods and demons or how to build a temple. Stone circles were calenders that marked sun and moon cycles. No one imagined a calendar such as we use but there were moon cycles that were easy to keep track of.

I can appreciate what you said about philosophy and science making our thinking very complex. What is justice? I don't know but if someone makes me mad I hit him. Problem resolved. :rofl: I hope you get I am trying to get us to that original very simple thinking and perhaps we can move slowly to more complex thinking as we contemplate the essence of being human. Like math, wow, what imagination math is! And then writing! What is up with that? Did these human inventions change our experience of being and our expectation of others?

I volunteered in schools and most children are obedient with no thought of resistance, but occasionally there was a child who wanted the freedom of being on the farm with Dad and had no appreciation of the school prisons. Is it good that we institutionalize our children or is there a negative to it?

— Agent Smith

Exactly. Our genes do not guarantee we will express our full human potential. Whatever human characteristics we have beyond those that determine our physical appearance, are learned.

The British show "Humans" is about robots that look like humans and how they interact with humans. Five of them are sentient. They can perceive and feel things. There is a real fear of sentient AI and this is a delicious subject for a philosophy forum.

Interesting is these human robots are nothing like Australian aborigines or jungle head hunters. These isolated human beings have very different values from ours. In the wild they have a better perception of nature they we do. We live mostly in our heads and our minds block our awareness of the moment.

What is essential to our humanness?

When we compare chimpanzees with bonobos, we can see our sexuality plays an important role in our social structure. Our abundance of food or lack of it plays an essential role in our experience of life and relationships.

Oh, and we can consider the novel and movie "Brave New World" where humans are grown in Petri dishes and from the moment of conception are programmed for their predetermined place in society. This is a human effort to have a utopia but is it what we want?

Perhaps this thread requires some imagination? We are as we make ourselves and exactly what is our potential? Why does it seem we can not be happy slaves as many indignant Southerns expected people of color to be happy and even appreciative of the good lives given to them. Why do humans rebel, because they are born in sin?

The US has always been many different cultures within a larger one. Jefferson understood education is essential to having a strong and united republic, and until 1958, education in the US attempted to transmit a culture based on democratic principles. I say there was an attempt to transmit an American culture for democracy because all schools were locally controlled and they could make independent decisions.

Most glaring for the US is the North attempted to use education to end slavery and the South realized what was happening. The South wanted to protect its way of life that was dependent on slavery and a few rich landowners. An economic system that was terrible for the Southern poor, no matter what color their skin was. Those in power had the power and they used it to create a Southern textbook supplier that would promote maintaining the status quo. Eventual the slavery issue was somewhat resolved with the Civil War, but as wars are very destructive, I would not say it ended the problem. We are still living with the problem of past prejudice and economic inequality. And darn, but Christianity has been part of the problem even more than it has been part of the solution. Good Christian Southern women did a lot to promote their way of life that was unjust to others.

Ah justice! Now there is a good philosophical topic. Solid solutions depend on philosophy, not religion.

Yeah, I have my problems with Freud and we sure have come a long way since his time. He was under the influence of the German mindset and patriarchy in general.

Okay, you got me- I know absolutely nothing of the effect of the Ottoman empire. I asked google what are the values of the Ottoman empire and they look good to me. But I gather there is a downside to being under the Ottoman. Please tell me what you know.

The Ottomans valued science, law, Islam, and art. People whose work reflected these were the highest social class. This included prayer leaders, judges, poets, and scientists. This class of people was even called, "Men of the Pen."

The Ottoman Empire Values the Pen by Grace Leckey - Prezi — Grace Leckey

There are two modes of thinking. Kahneman calls them fast and slow thinking and both modes of thinking are essential to our survival. When our lives are threatened this is not a good time to philosophically ponder the moment.

It takes a lot of energy to actually think things through so most of the day we are on automatic, just responding without much thought. That most certainly is not what should be happening in a philosophy forum.

It is foolish to expect anyone to be rational without training for rational thinking. My grandmother who was a teacher would say, we teach children math to teach them how to think. That is no longer true. We now teach them math for high-tech jobs, not life skills. We used to use the Conceptual Method of education. That means teaching children increasingly complex concepts. That is no longer true. We replaced the Conceptual method with the Behaviorist Method. The Behaviorist Method is also used for training dogs. Dogs do not vote. Dogs will take that sandwich out of your hand and fight for bones. Welcome to American today.

@Alkis Piskas is aware of cultural differences between the West and East and perhaps he will say something about these cultural differences having different human potential.

I have to add, how you think is mostly about the culture that shapes your life. It is mostly outside of your consciousness but you are in this forum and that means you are doing more thinking than the average American.

think this exchange is got quite "personal" and I don't want to burden this thread more. I will reply you with a message to your Profile page. — Alkis Piskas

I can appreciate protecting our privacy but in private you mentioned what needs to be stated here. Culturally we are different because our cultures tell us how to be and what to think or not think. In the US even if we are not Christians, our culture is permeated with Christian beliefs that influence our lives daily. The reality of this is very different from how India presents itself. As Agent Smith mentions, cultures manifest different completeness and my concern is that around the world, people have taken their culture for granted and then are willing to fight for their culture. I want us to think about what we are doing and how we might do things differently.

According to Freud, thoughts and emotions outside of our awareness continue to exert an influence on our behaviors, even though we are unaware (unconscious) of these underlying influences. The unconscious can include repressed feelings, hidden memories, habits, thoughts, desires, and reactions.Dec 9, 2020

The Preconscious, Conscious, and Unconscious Minds — Kendra Cherry

This is true for individuals and entire cultures. This thread is a kind of a psychoanalysis and hopefully an awareness of how we can do better.

The question, it seems, is rather easy to answer because it's asking about essences (necessary conditions) without saying anything about completeness i.e. if you find one essence that'll do. In other words, we needn't go into the definition of a human being which is basically a list of individually necessary but collectively sufficient qualities that can be used to identify a human being.

One "what is essential to being a human being" is our manifest rationality or potential for it, whether actualized or not. — Agent Smith

The point of asking the question is not to have one definitive statement. The point of asking is to have a discussion, so can we play with your last statement?

Is it possible to learn the wrong thing? What happens when we learn the wrong thing? What happens when we learn the right thing? How do we learn? How do we know we have learned the right thing?

Oh my yes, you have greatly benefitted my understanding of things that seem very, very important to me. I have enjoyed looking for more information. I what to know, why you are so well informed and seem to understand the importance of democracy when people are well prepared to have a civilization that benefits everyone. If America were as you have shown yourself to be, I would not be writing as though something was very wrong. Was it your education, parents, or life experience that made you so aware? How can, what made you as you are, be replicated and become a widespread social agreement? A national culture?

I tried to start a discussion about episteme and techne in another forum and someone posted something he thought was funny. I get his good intentions, but it was disgusting to me and had nothing to do with what I want to understand. Two people cussing with the worst possible words is not funny to me, but that is what is popular and the discussions I want to have are not. There seems to be a motive to reduce us to the lowest common denominator, and a strong distaste for raising the bar. That is curious to me. Why would humans want to do that?

It looks like we are coming to a close. Thanks to you stimulating my desire to know more I have learned more. I have been reading and listening to explanations about the intellectual/spiritual differences between the Greeks and Romans. That is the difference between techne and episteme and also a difference between metaphysics and materialism, or we could say a difference between concrete thinking or conceptual thinking.

I will start a new thread and see if members of the forum can provide more information about these differences and maybe try a history forum. Out reality would be very different If the Greeks had had the power of imperialism that Rome had. Some people are aware that Roman Christianity is a perversion with a more worldly focus and literal interpretation of the mythology. This changes the expression of our human nature and I am sorry people dropped out of the discussion but glad you hung in there bringing me to the greater awareness I have now.

Reverse definition! Well, I don't know exactly what you have in mind saying that. I can think of "social consciousness/awareness" and "ethics". Ethics for me are based on major good for the greatest number. Which, in this case means acting in a way that benefits one's society/country rather than oneself, at least for matters concerning the society/country. — Alkis Piskas

Please, how did you get the idea that ethics means thinking about what benefits the whole of society? I think it is obvious your understanding is vital to a democracy. Democracy is rule by reason, not by authority over the people. The people can have liberty and raise the human potential when they understand self-government means manifesting that, as opposed to making a profit in unethical ways and basing decisions on feelings instead of reason. Human, is speaking and acting based on principles rather than lower-level self-interest.

The US has gone through a long period of reasoning for selfishness, and education for technology is not education for good moral judgment. I think it could be said we are now amoral. This is creating very serious problems. People are basing their decisions on their feelings, not on the complex process of thinking, and this makes them like animals, rather than higher-level humans. Our President Trump who encouraged his followers to fight for his continued rule of America, is a master at manipulating people's emotions to get what he wants, just like Hitler, and his followers acted violently just like animals lead by an alpha male attack intruding outsiders.

As I say those words I am thinking of bonobos and chimpanzees. Physically they look the same, but bonobos are matriarchal and chimpanzees are patriarchal. Those are very different social organizations. One is more cooperative than the other is more competitive. How different are they from being human?

A few different physical characteristics separate us from other social animals. But our real difference is our brains. Humans are more inventive and have greater self-awareness, but how about awareness of others? That consciousness is essential to ethics, right? However, biologically we are limited to having a little knowledge of about 500 to 600 people and beyond that, everyone is a stranger. This radically changes our morals. We are no longer living informally in small groups.

Religion, authority over the people, made it possible for larger groups of people to live together. The laws of gods made civilizations possible. This led to authority over the people. Athenians remained independent city-states and understood the need to limit the number of people in a democracy. That is, when we shift to populations larger than 600 people we must live by agreement and preferably consensus on the best reasoning, or have a strong authority over the masses. In a democracy that is learning virtues, principles, and ethics. Intentionally becoming virtuous and intentionally basing decisions on principles, but that does not happen without education. Many years ago I was conversing with a journalist who could not understand why everyone was not as good a human being as he was. Well, not everyone had the life benefits that he grew up with. So back to you. How did you come to have that understanding of ethics?

You see, Biden is more ethical than Trump because he thinks beyond even his country, i.e. in a larger sphere, than Trump, who was caring only about his country. — Alkis Piskas

Yes! your ethics work but only with education for that will human beings be ethical and not like animals.
This is why I keep saying only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. We replaced our education for citizenship with education for a technological society with unknown values and left moral training to the Church as Germany did. We have been dehumanized and more and more are acting like rats in a corner or a troop of chimpanzees driving off the invading troop and taking what we want from others, pitting ourselves against each other and destroying our faith in our democracy and human decency. And literally, our churches are promoting this! We have been specialized and know little outside of our specialty and our limited group of acquaintances and live with a lot of fear and anger. This is not the democracy of our forefather's dreams.

I am secular too! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

So were many of our forefathers who preferred the Greek and Roman classics and turned away from religion. We have a much higher morality than people who live by faith and avoid thinking as much as possible. Billy Graham (Christian evangelist) working with Presidents and Presidents taking advantage of the Christian right to wage wars and win elections, has brought us to a very bad position in the world.
Our Statue of Liberty holds the Sword of Justice and the Scales of Justice and a book for literacy. She, along with the Lady of Justice and the Spirit of America in the mural at the Capitol are the three aspects of Athena, Liberty, Justice, and the defense of those who stand for liberty and justice. Now Christians believe they gave us democracy and have no understanding of what the Greeks have to do with it. The story we tell does matter.

Thank you so much for your post. If what we are saying here is not said, no one will think about the importance of education for being humans versus being the most powerful troop of animals. That once was the German and American difference, before our most powerful people traded what we had for a military industrial complex. The beast fed by human slaves.

Allow me to suggest to just forget about the myths of Christianity. I have already expalined why. — Alkis Piskas

The word "human" means moist soil. We can not just forget about Christianity because it is embedded in our culture. It determines who is our president, what laws we have, what wars we fight, and how our children are educated. It is not the only influence on those things but a very powerful influence.

The vast majority of people vote based on their own interests and benefit, but also fears and beliefs. — Alkis Piskas

We are suppose to have "government of the people, by the people, for the people" Lincoln plagiarized Pericles, (born c. 495 bce, Athens—died 429, Athens) when he said that. It means we think of the highest morality to have a nation that lifts the whole of humanity. Trump keeps yelling "make America great again", but that can only be done through education. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Without that education yes, the majority whose knowledge of life is limited to their own personal experience, vote to feather their own nest and to hell with anyone else. You are good with words. what is a good word for having knowledge and morality that manifest a great nation?

Our past president, Trump, just wanted to push all immigrants out. Biden is questioning what we can do to improve living conditions in other countries so all those people will stop flooding into the US. I don't exactly like Biden but he is thinking of the welfare of everyone, not just himself. Whereas Trump clearly puts himself first. Trump even put self-interest above our national interest. This is about what we learn and or our moral decisions. Just thinking of ourselves, leads to great harm. Today, that thinking can mean the end of civilizations.

A handful of men, literate in the classics, risked everything for democracy and led us into a war to separate our nation from England. Democracy as they understood it, lifts the human potential through education and scientific discovery, and good moral judgment based on learning, not our animalistic grab for the biggest piece of pie. How we define the human essence matters because that determines everything else. Education for technology and leaving moral training to the church is leading us to the end of times. But we could have education "for the people" who realize the importance of self-government is the welfare of everyone. "We the people" standing for "liberty and justice for all". Christianity says this dream is impossible because we are born in sin. Only when we stopped educating for good citizenship did this great hope for democracy start to look impossible.

Yet, this doesn't make us animals or even less humans. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, it does make us as animals. Only education can make us better than animals and that is not education for technology. Liberal education for good moral judgment makes an important difference. Humans must learn the higher-order thinking skills. They are not natural. We inherit only the potential for learning, not the knowledge that is the human potential. I failed to reason with those who posted here the importance of education to not be like greedy animals. Education for technology so we can beat all the competition and get the biggest piece of the pie does leave us as animals, who need a strong authority over them because they can not be trusted to make morally correct decisions. What I am saying is the same as what Christians say, only, as the people of Athens became, I am secular and believe our humanness depends on education, not a supernatural being. Our heaven on earth is about our thoughts and action, not a deity.

He — Alkis Piskas

He was connecting morality/etchics with knowledge (meaning consciousness, a term and subject that came into existence after wuite a long time after that period.) — Alkis Piskas

[="Athena;d13103"]Last night I was listening to explanations of the philosophy of education and one began with a question about the qualities of being human.[/quote]

For me, there is no deviation from the OP. For you are right on topic when you speak of Christianity wanting to control our thoughts and Christians opposing education for independent thinking. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher-order thinking skills. That is specifically about not having education for independent thinking, logic, and reasoning; and Christianity is the strongest force behind ending education for good moral judgment which is education for the higher-order thinking skills. The reason for this is THE QUESTION ABOUT OUR ESSENCE OF BEING HUMAN!

Are we made from mud and born into sin and therefore need to be held under authority or are we evolved and share much in common with animals with only the potential for being highly intelligent. Like the potential of a thoroughbred horse is wasted without training, so our potential for intelligence wasted without training? :worry: I failed because nothing of any significance was said of what makes us human. This is tragic because we are not bringing out the very best of who we can be and democracy depends on bring out the best in each of us, and preparing us to be the responsible citizens a democracy must have. We are preparing our children to be products for industry not reasoning people who are a free to be all they can be.

He was connecting morality/ethics with knowledge (meaning consciousness, a term and subject that came into existence after quite a long time after that period.) — Alkis Piskas

Can we ponder for a moment the difference between what you said and being indoctrinated in a religion? What do we think is the essence of being human? How does that relate to how they are educated and their political reality? Are we greedy animals voting for our personal befit or intelligent beings voting for all? Are we by nature political animals or slaves fit only for meeting the economic needs of industry.

And I undestand now why are you repeatedly refering to story-telling. — Alkis Piskas

The story tells us what to believe about ourselves and others. Am I alone with understanding? I asked about our human essence because I think we really need to think about that. The New World Order is what the US defended its democracy against, and the Bush presidents along with Billy Graham loved the New World Order and we are educating for it. Do we educate for free humans or products for industry?

Hi. I'm back.
I assume that by "a moral"? you mean "a moral act" or simply "morality". I will also assume that by "cause and effect" in this context you mean that morality is consequential, i.e. the morality of an act is judged based on its consequences. Which makes sense, but it's not a criterion for me. I believe that a moral act is mainly based on the intentions of the individual who did it and also his [for brevity] knowledge or reality. Because if I do something that has bad consequences but I did not do it intentionally and knowingly, it cannot be considered an immoral act my part.

Then you say that morality --being moral-- is connected with one's knowledge of the laws of the universe. If this is right, "Why's that?". And is this too materialistic? That is, based on purely physical things?

f you google "moral stories" the choices begin with Christian stories, but all people sat around the fire and told stories that convey proper beheavior.
— Athena
This is true. But I don't think that we can define and build a moral system based on popular and religious stories. Neither on things like "The moral of the story is ..."

What is the Greek word of moral?
A similarity is that moral is a translation of the ancient Greek word ethikos from which the adjective ethical derives. Both words refer to human character and behavior.
— Athena
Correct. "Ethikos" can be literally translated in English to "moral". In Greek, it is generally used with the same meaning, applying to same things.

comes from the Late Latin mōrālitās, meaning “human nature.”
— Athena
Same with Greek "ethikos": it comes from "ethos", which also exists in the English language and means "the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations." ( Oxford LEXICO.

Christianity is bad for our democracy because of its claim to being the authority on all this, perverting our democracy which must be tied to science
— Athena
Certainly. Christianity is a dogmatic religion and consequently it cannot be democratic in nature. But I don't know any religion that is "democratic", a term which refers to the political world . That's why religions coexist for eons with democracy.
The problem Christianity however, as I see it, is not that it is not democratic but it is created on totally non-scientific elements. Even the "philosophical" elements that it contains are quite loose, i.e. not based on critical reasoning but rather on unfounded and loose data, like god-sent stories and "wisdom" and a lot of "mythology". How can one trust all that?
Buddhism, on the other hand, has much more solid foundations, based on logic and applications in life (experience). That's why it is the only religion --I can call it religious philosophy or even just philosophy-- that makes sense to me.

Science and morality go together.
— Athena
I am not sure how do you use the term Science. Certainly not in the standard, conventional way, which is "The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained." (Oxford LEXICO) Which refers to a totally materialistic/physical world, irrelevant to morality. — Alkis Piskas

Let me begin with you have an excellent vocabulary. I think I am going to intentionally work on my vocabulary. But at my age, I forget even simple words, so I gave up on completing the book I started.

Yes, I mean morality is consequential! Yes, our decisions and actions are based on knowledge. That is why Socrates was focused on expanding people's consciousness. "Conscience" means coming out of science/what we know. Aristotle pointed out that knowing the right thing to do is not enough because we can know our doctor said we should stop eating donuts and other sugary things and we eat the wrong foods anyway. For this reason, we must work on our motivation as well and Chinese thinkers explain this very well. So does Aristotle and we call his works ethics.

The word morality is Latin and means the same thing as ethos, but now we can talk about morals as though they come from God's word and not have any awareness that this line of thinking comes from the Greeks. This is destructive to our understanding of reality and democracy. It is perhaps the biggest reason we are at each other's throats instead of advancing the human potential.

"This is true. But I don't think that we can define and build a moral system based on popular and religious stories. Neither on things like "The moral of the story is ..." -Alkis"

Okay, let us go back in time to when we covered ourselves in grasses and furs. We are walking the earth with our extended family highly attuned to nature because we have almost nothing to keep us safe except our wits. I think in this thread there was resistance to doing that, but that is a good place to start when considering what is essential to our humanness. Knowledge and agreements are essential to our ability to work together and survive and we start telling stories that unite us.

Because it is easier to remember info about humans, we humanized our landscape and know we can find water where the 3 sisters (a rock formation) sit. We have not divided our thinking between what is living and what is not. We don't have all the verbal categories essential to science and more modern man can see the superstition but not the event that began the story and its survival purpose. We call those stories folklore or myths and dismiss them as useless, but they are the tribes, and later civilizations way of establishing social agreements and the organization of power. Much later, they were the foundation of education in the US. We did not add vocational training until 1917 when we mobilized for war. That was a dramatic change in education and another dramatic change was made in 1958.

At least 5 biblical stories came from the Sumerian city Ur and this mythology justified kings and what the US does today. Billy Graham a powerful evangelist told us in a special TV show that God wants us to send our young men and women into the war against Iraq, and Bush we reelected by the Christian right. Not recognizing the power of myth would be a mistake. We are in the throes of culture wars and our democracy may not survive.

This link is excellent for understanding the importance of storytelling and the civilizations that are manifested https://www.jstor.org/stable/1178184 . I especially like this line "Greek myths tend to generalize events, Roman myths make them concrete; Greek myths transcend time and space, Roman legends insist upon historicity;" And remember Ceolpatra built her power on the myth of the goddess Isis.

"Christianity is a dogmatic religion and consequently it cannot be democratic in nature. Oh yeah! And we have Rome to thank for that. Our democracy begins in Athens and with universals truths that we can discover. Literacy in the Greek and Roman classics is essential to democracy and we had that until 1958. Liberal education is learning the Greek and Roman classics and learning how to be our own heroes. It is education for freemen. Education for technology has always been for slaves and it, along with Christianity, is killing our democracy.

"The problem Christianity however, as I see it, is not that it is not democratic but it is created on totally non-scientific elements" please keep responding. I have to run. Check back to the Roman problem. Should we start a new thread for that? It looks like everyone dropped out of this thread except you. It is all about what we believe about humans. Thinking we are born in sin and need to be saved, is the main root of Christianity destroying democracy and why we now have amoral education for technology. You are the only one bringing up the important points!

There are of course some branches of philosopy that treat the subject of ethics/morality, but they are either materialistic or not clear about the nature of the mind, and certainly they don't want to have anything with the human spirit or soul. (I am not talking about the ancient Greek philosophers or the philosophers of the East.) — Alkis Piskas

I think we have a lot of agreement but understand the meaning of words differently. For me a moral is a matter of cause and effect, tieing morality to knowing universal law/science. The stories we once read to little children, teaching them virtues and the principle of cause are called folk tales, Native Americans have such stories along with people all over the world. If you google "moral stories" the choices begin with Christian stories, but all people sat around the fire and told stories that convey proper beheavior.

What is the Greek word of moral?
A similarity is that moral is a translation of the ancient Greek word ethikos from which the adjective ethical derives. Both words refer to human character and behavior.

What is the Greek word of moral?
What is the origin of the word moral?
The first records of morality come from around 1350. It ultimately comes from the Late Latin mōrālitās, meaning “human nature.” It combines the word moral, meaning “related to goodness,” and -ity, a suffix used to make abstract nouns that state a condition. Morality differs from society to society and person to person. https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+meaning+of+moral&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=ALiCzsaKffrbcQi_dUL-xleqzVJn6Bk-fQ%3A1656420140844&ei=LPe6YrePM6rWkPIP7_m0uA4&ved=0ahUKEwi31d_wldD4AhUqK0QIHe88DecQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=greek+meaning+of+moral&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQghEKABMggIIRAeEBYQHTIICCEQHhAWEB0yCAghEB4QFhAdMggIIRAeEBYQHTIICCEQHhAWEB0yCAghEB4QFhAdMggIIRAeEBYQHTIICCEQHhAWEB0yCAghEB4QFhAdOgQIIxAnOgUIABCRAjoLCAAQgAQQsQMQgwE6BQguEJECOhEILhCABBCxAxCDARDHARDRAzoECAAQQzoECC4QQzoHCC4Q1AIQQzoLCC4QgAQQxwEQrwE6BwgAELEDEEM6CggAEIAEEIcCEBQ6CAgAEIAEELEDOggILhCABBCxAzoFCAAQgAQ6CAgAEIAEEMkDOgUILhCABDoNCAAQgAQQsQMQRhD5AToGCAAQHhAWOggIABAeEA8QFjoFCAAQhgNKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQAFiqJWCYLGgAcAF4AIABa4gB0A2SAQQyMC4ymAEAoAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

When we add an 'e' to "moral" we get "morale" that good feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. We once thought virtues were synonymous with strength. Indeed when we believe we are standing for what is good and right, we will risk our lives of going to jail and we do not back down. Christianity hijacked the mean characteristic of human nature that is in all of us all around the world, regardless of which god we pray to, or if we do not live with a story of a god and creation. The Spirit of America is the mural of the gods at the US Capitol Building. She holds the Sword of Justice, which comes from Celtic folklore and she is the spirit of morality. The Spirit of America, Lady Justice, and Statue of liberty are the three aspects of Athena, Justice and Liberty and defender of those who stand for Justice and Liberty. This is to say morals are universal and our spirit can be good or bad, and it all goes with democracy.

Button line is all this is our nature and Christianity is bad for our democracy because of its claim to being the authority on all this, perverting our democracy which must be tied to science! The mythology of being born in sin, seriously perverts democracy. How do we know truth? We use the scientific method and debate until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. I hope you get what I am saying? It is beyond the intellectual capacity of animals but it is not separate from philosophy, nor should it be separate from education. And I think we are losing people because I am afraid they are not seeing what all this has to do with the essence of being human. We are as we make ourselves, not as supernatural deities make us. We used to read moral stories to children and ask what is the moral of the story and the answer is a matter of cause and effect. Science and morality go together. And technology is not equal to science. Education for technology is not a good as education for science is a good.

morality is a spiritual subject, and as such it belongs to the field of religion. — Alkis Piskas

I have to run to work but want to get into what you said. Democracy demands moral education that begins with science and philosophy.

That part of human history is lost - language was in its infancy, reason too I suppose and technology, we had none!

Nevertheless, we could make reasonable conjectures I suppose.

Richard Dawkins says, in an interview, that evolution is a gradual process and that there's no clearcut boundary between human and nonhuman primates. Bummer! — Agent Smith

Oh yes, I want everyone to think about our most distant past, same as I want everyone to think of humans with all levels of intelligence and living in different levels of human progress. I have heard slavery was justified by Aristotle on the grounds it was a kindness to make slaves of people with less intellectual development and this thinking later justifies holding people of color as slaves treating them differently than White servants.

This morning I read of Brazil's efforts to integrate everyone into mainstream society and this is very different from either institutionalizing people or leaving them on the streets to die as is done in the US.
Brazil has programs that take into consideration that being integrated into mainstream society, means learning social skills. In the US the original reason for making it law that communities were to provide l free education was to Americanize immigrants who did not understand our institutions and culture. This comes from the 1917 National Education Association Conference book that records all the speeches given. The priority purpose of our education was to make good citizens and other than learning math, reading and writing, the US did not have education for technology. However, because of WWI education for technology was added to education and this was a wonderful improvement and it came from Germany. I will gladly provide quotes if anyone cares. The primary focus of education remained citizenship until 1958 when it was dropped because until the military technology of WWII our defense depended on patriotic citizens willing to make huge sacrifices for war.

Everyone understands children need to be taught social skills and virtues and morals but thisis no longer the focus of education and I really want to say ending racism and other wrongs came about because of education in some states. This gets complicated because the US has local control of schools and we are still having a lot of conflict about what is a good education. Today in the US industries are providing education in our schools, and this means global warming denying in some states and this is not what I call a moral education. Same problem with some states educating the young for segregation and racism. I have one education book published in the last 10 years that claims science has proven people of color are intellectually inferior! Really we need to pay attention to education!!!

I have to run right now, but if it were not for your post, I could go shoot my brains out because you seem to be the only one getting the point of this thread. However, the other post also stimulated thought and I have enjoyed them all, it is just frustrating when there appears to be no understanding of why I started this thread.

I keep thinking of tribal differences and humans before civilizations and the development of thought over the last 6000 years. We are what we taught ourselves to be, and I am glad you see the value in thinking about what we are teaching our children and why! Democracy requires education for being a civil human being, and that is not education for technology for military and industrial purposes. We must not leave moral education up to the church. :cry: Please, if you can help clarify this point I would appreciate that.

Let us look at the OP's question in terms of necessary conditions instead of both that and sufficient conditions! I guarantee progress if we do so. — Agent Smith

Okay, let us begin with the first humans to walk the earth. How did they think and live?

You countered this with America's history of marginalizing visible minorities and at times, killing them.

Which came first in your opinion? The war on Indians, the Slavery of Africans, or Nazi Germany?

Then you continued to say that America has adopted the German education system of teaching technological subjects, when America has adopted the enemy's system.

Which came first? The German education system, or Naziism?

You are all over the place, and your timeline needs straightening.

I mean, you make general statements without observing the facts first. Yes, I don't read your posts end-to-end because it hurts to see so many absolutely jumbled reasons and to see and ending with an unsubstantiated point.

Please apply more discipline in your thinking, then in your writing. — god must be atheist

Which came first, is human nature, which is not very different from animal nature. We do not criticize other animals as we do humans. Why? Why do we expect anything different from humans? Or why do we not recognize all humans as equal humans and justify killing and slavery?

Civilization changed human behavior and we began basing our lives on what we think as opposed to the simple laws of nature that all social animals follow. I am not sure that this change is an improvement. I think we have gone a bit nuts with our judgment of others and self-righteousness but maybe we are moving towards a higher human potential? I am not sure? However, I do know we don't naturally have all the thoughts we live with today. All these thoughts must be learned and we are living too much in thoughts, and disconnected from reality. There are many different tribes and socialities inside societies and civilizations. They are different because of their different environments and different stories that convene different cultures and different subcultures. Some groups are aggressive and may be gregarious or may retreat into the jungle. Some are timid and maybe curious or may flee. There are many different mixes of human character, societies, and cultures.

Which came first? Germanic people, Christianity, German education, or Nazis? What is a simple way of saying there were waves of change, and the Prussians had a different environment and a different culture than the Germans to the west. The Prussians took control of the whole of what is Germany today. Before the Prussian bureaucratic model and education, Germans to the west did not have the same culture nor the same organization. The Prussian control of Germany and education for technology for military and industrial purposes came before the Nazi rising. I do not understand the need to ask your question about what came first? I thought the order of change was clear, but oh, you are not reading through my post, so I guess a lot may not be clear. Thank you for helping me be a better writer.

As I said before, if you have a problem with what I say, call my attention to it. It is simple to copy and paste, and then say why you do not agree with what I said or say ask a question to clarify something.

In the case of Germany, it was. Textbooks were permeated by slogans and snippets of "truth".

So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany. In this aspect at least. I think that's what you said at one point and that's what I found exception with.

As to not reading your posts properly, guilty as charged. I find your style hard to comprehend. You make no points, but write a flux of ideas and you are enthusiastic about some of them, but it's hard, at least for me, to grasp your points. To me it seems that your points that you actually state are not related to what you write in the surrounding text.

I find it a bit disturbing, because if I raise an objection against a point you make, then you will refer to other parts of your text where you deny that point, or mix them up and confuse your debating opponent totally.

Just my experience with reading your posts, please don't pay any heed to it if you don't want to.
a day ago — god must be atheist

It is pointless to continue a discussion with who has an opinion and ignores what I am saying. When it comes to the following....

Overview
In the previous lesson, students were introduced to the Nazis’ idea of a “national community” shaped according to their racial ideals, and the way the Nazis used laws to define and then separate those who belonged to the “national community” from those who did not. In this lesson, students will continue this unit’s historical case study by considering the nature of propaganda and analyzing how the Nazis used media to influence the thoughts, feelings, and actions of individuals in Germany. While the Nazis used propaganda as a tool to try to condition the German public to accept, if not actively support, all of their goals (including rearmament and war), this lesson focuses specifically on how they used propaganda to establish “in” groups and “out” groups in German society and cultivate their ideal “national community.” After carefully analyzing several propaganda images created by the Nazis, students will consider the ways in which this material influenced individuals, and they will be encouraged to consider how the effects of propaganda are more complicated than simple brainwashing. — Resource Library

the US led the way, with segration of blacks and Asians, and Native Americans on reservations. This is not a past problem but one that very much threatens our democracy and is tied to religion and war.

When it comes to education for technology and advancing democracy, the Prussians led the way.

The Prussian education system refers to the system of education established in Prussia as a result of educational reforms in the late 18th and early 19th century, which has had widespread influence since. The Prussian education system was introduced as a basic concept in the late 18th century and was significantly enhanced after Prussia's defeat in the early stages of the Napoleonic Wars. The Prussian educational reforms inspired similar changes in other countries, and remain an important consideration in accounting for modern nation-building projects and their consequences.[1]

The term itself is not used in German literature, which refers to the primary aspects of the Humboldtian education ideal respectively as the Prussian reforms; however, the basic concept has led to various debates and controversies. Twenty-first century primary and secondary education in Germany and beyond still embodies the legacy of the Prussian education system. — Wikipedia

Your opinion "So this goes to show that America has not adopted the German education system of Nazi Germany" Is an uninformed opinion and isn't it pointless to argue with someone who ignores the fact and says I am not making points? Show me where I have been confusing so there is a possibility of me correcting that problem. Or we could jump to what is the purpose of education and maybe make some progress?

I have an old grade school text that bluntly prepares the US for war against Germany, and we have a population that believes they are God's favored people who fight evil because this is the will of God. They oppose the godless communist, and the terrorist wherever they may be found. Billy Graham and the Evangicalist are the right hand of the neocons who wanted military control of the mid-east. Religion, war, and education go together. If that is a pointless or confusing statement, I am sorry.

This is very true. We do not treat lack of intelligence well. In fact, the opposite. People are often punished, invalidated, demeaned, frowned upon etc. by others for being in this condition. If instead they were supported in various ways, they wouldn't end up in prisons or asylums or led to suicide as you say. Not that this is easy, and psychologists do not help much. But there exist quite effecive methods that treat such a condition.

Human beings are born with different degrees of intellectual and other mental abilities, as well with different potential. Their immediate environment --family, scholl, society-- can enhance or worsen them. Note however that intelligence can be enhanced at any moment in the life of an individual, using different methods and techniques. (I have worked in this field in that past, and have seen people changing a lot if not radically and their IQs rising.) Individuals are not bound to lack intelligence for their whole life. Unfortunately though, they do because they are not given the opportunity to change that state. — Alkis Piskas

I like very much what you are saying. To a large degree, my concern about education is my understanding of an essential change that has led to increasing social problems. Education has been focused on those who will go on to college. What really got me researching education was a commentator who said teachers should not have to waste their time on children not headed for college.

In my grandmother's day, education was for everyone because it was about good citizenship. Teachers thought it was their job to help every student, even retarded ones, discover their talents and interest. It was taught, there is a place for everyone in society, that every job is important, and everyone is deserving of dignity. I helped such a young man become a janitor and he was a super janitor because it was something he could do well and he had the tenacity to do it day after day. His parents thought he would never earn his own way, but as a janitor, he could and he worked for an employee-owned company where employees can invest in the company so he retired with a huge sum of money. Not bad for someone everyone had given up on.

If people can earn self-esteem they do not buy guns and become mass murderers. Back to the commentator's remark, I called him and said what he said about teachers not having to spend time with struggling students was a terrible thing to say and he was so proud of himself because teachers told him they really loved what he said. Within months, one of the students where my daughter was in school, killed his school teacher parents, and then went to the school and killed or wounded many more. That school was extremely blue-nosed and impersonal. Many teachers and schools are marginalizing young people, leaving them to find their way in a society they do not understand, and believing they have no value and there is no place for them. Yes, they are alienated and angry, and we can prevent this with education.

In Nazi Germany, students were brainwashed to idolize Hitler, and to hate Jews. The slogans permeated all textbooks. — god must be atheist

Trump supporters were not brainwashed but both Trump and Hitler were appealing to people. That is good showmanship, not exactly government control brainwashing. I could be wrong but I think education for technology rather than education for culture and democracy is behind finding men like Trump and Hitler attractive. The slogans being appealing because the education set the stage for that.
It is believed that human beings with technology can do anything and nothing is more important than achieving those goals. This is not George Washington (first US president) being honest about cutting down the cherry tree, or Abe Lincoln (President who ended slavery) walking a mile to return a penny. It is not independent thinking but "group think" and dependency on a leader.

I see a Jewish/ Christian motif here, of a God sending leaders (kings). It appeals like loving the Pharoah is appealing in good times and hating pharaoh or king or president, when times are bad. It is not democracy. Our education prepared everyone for leadership and it is not doing that. We stopped doing that in 1958 and began preparing everyone to depend on the "experts" and we dropped moral training and left moral training to the church. We are now amoral and heading towards a police state.

Christianity has no evidence of the validity of their faith. This website is replete with arguments between Christian thinkers and atheists, and atheists show evidence why Christianity is a false belief, and yet the overwhelming amount of evidence still don't daunt the Christians to admit where their faith shows logical impossibilities. That's what I meant by saying "All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule." Because to them evidence is not compelling in cases of dispute.

That's exactly what I typed, and I am sorry you had a hard time with comprehending, or found it impossible to understand the meaning. I hope you get it now. — god must be atheist

I do not lack understanding of what you said but think you lack understanding of what I said. The validity of faith is not the written word but the effect it has on our thoughts and feelings. It is experienced and nothing gets more real than that. As I see the problem, it is not recognizing the experience is real, not because of supernatural powers, but because of the power of our brains. If we recognized that, perhaps we would have fewer futile arguments and they would acknowledge it doesn't matter what faith a person has because it works for all the religious people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Toaist, and even atheists who understand they are dealing with the power of our brain and achieved whatever they wanted to achieve with their thoughts. If we do not acknowledge that, all arguments against faith are futile because their experience validates their faith.

I like your arguments and acceptance that some of us are not highly intelligent. I worry about that because it is a reality we have to contend with. If we do not care for these people they end up on the streets and maybe in our prisons and that is just sad.

I am afraid you are not familiar with the pre-war educational system and curriculum in Germany. I am not familiar with it either, so it's a battle of opinions. I base my opinion on my own experience.

In my country, Hungary, all students had to take all subjects. All the way to the top of high school. Then they had to matriculate seniorly in four subjects (recently), and six subjects (before WWII). One of the matriculate subjects were technical (math) and three were in the humanities (history, Russian as a foreign language, and literature). A student could elect to matriculate in an extra subject. Biology, a second second language, chemistry, geography, physics, masturbation, and philosophy (of sorts). Music, i.e. singing, gym and art were all compulsory throughout the entire span of education, but were not matriculand subjects.

Was the German model different? I don't know. I'll research it. — god must be atheist

My dear, I would have no notion of Germany's history of education if I had not read about it. When I speak of education it is not my imagination telling a story but the result of reading and owning the books that I use for reference. That reading put me on a path that I did not intend. I was only going to buy one old American textbook that explained the "set of American values" every child was taught. :lol: I have a bookcase full of books about education, the history of education, textbooks, and books about Germany because I knew we had adopted the German model of education. I am obsessed! An obsession is an extreme and a little mentally unstable. I don't trust what I think because I am so emotionally evolved with it. Anyway, there are some facts in the books that we can share.

But your education I am stunned! Those subjects you listed were high school subjects? I am in tears :cry: I would have done anything to have an education like that.

Here are our present core subjects

Math: Four years – often includes algebra, geometry and trigonometry
English: Four years – covers classic and period literature, drama, research, and writing
Science: Three classes – often involves biology, chemistry and physics
History: Three classes – U.S. history, world history and civics are common requirements
Foreign Language: Two years (sometimes optional) – Spanish, French and German are long-standing offerings, but Japanese, Chinese and Russian are increasingly popular
Physical Education: Two years – can often be replaced by approved after-school activities
Computers: Two classes – typing, office programs and web standards are just a start
Health: One class – nutrition, disease, sexuality and first aid are often covered

Only in some school districts will children get any more than this and of course, there were no computer classes. But I did have home economics. :grin: I was in school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was implemented and boy, did our education change! I think because I experienced the before and act 1958 education, I am more emotionally involved than most.

Coming from my college research is an understanding that our sense of values is in every cell of our bodies, not just our brains. Our feelings are very much a part of our thinking. Once we learn to fear things like going to hell, it is very hard to be rational about the belief. Our learning that a woman's roll in society is being the caregiver, can make being dedicated to a career and not the family "feel" like a terrible wrong. Whereas a man socialized as men were socialized, may not feel manly if he is not succeeding in the business world. These ideas being tied to our feelings and our identity.

Gosh! thank you everyone for stimulating all this thinking.

True. However, evidence may be compelling in cases of dispute about opinions. (All Christians and other worshippers are completely exempt from this rule.) — god must be atheist

Please, provide examples of compelling evidence. I am having a hard time understanding your meaning.

I believe Christians do seek and find evidence that Christianity is God's truth. Buddist find evidence that Buddism is the truth. Hindus obviously experience their religion as sacred knowledge and it works for them. Let me explain why I believe this.

On the way to a job interview at a remote resort, I went up the wrong mountain. When I turned around and came back down the mountain my brakes overheated and failed. When I got the car stopped, I got out of it and began walking back to civilization. Need I say this was a very frightening situation for me?

I called on the goddess of the hunt, Artemis, to help me and she did. Absolutely, no doubt, she did help me. Do I literally believe in the gods? No. Was my situation as threatening as I feared? No. My sister intentionally goes into the mountains and camps by herself. As @Banno explained, we have two realities, one is what is and the other is what we think it to be. My imagination was creating a very frightening experience and when I shifted my focus to Artemis my imagination of Artemis gave me courage and strength. All religious people experience the same thing and it is evident to them that what they believe is true. It is a self-evident truth because we do experience what our brains tell us to experience.

Something that is characteristic of human ways of life is our capacity to construct social institutions.

This depends on language, in that social institutions are instantiated by language, and indeed language is itself a social institution. But it goes further than language in that we construct a vastly complex, "imagined" world on top of the real world.

We construct these institutions by having things count as... So this piece of paper counts as money, this line counts as a territorial border, this group of people counts as a sports club or a political party.

The vast majority of our interactions take place within the context of these institutions.

This account differs from others given int his thread because it is not about what makes some individuals human - their DNA or their body or their consciousness. It is collective. It is about what makes us human. — Banno

I really really like that explanation. Our tribe can be great warriors, maybe even head hunters, or it can be very congenial with strangers and peaceful. Preparing a child for this tribe or that one begins at birth. If parents want warriors they treat the baby roughly and if they want children who are cooperative and non-aggressive, they are very gentle with the child. I feel so frustrated with typical explanations of our human nature that just assume all humans go to war and it is because of sin that we behave badly. I am sure you know the common beliefs about our bad behavior being our nature. At least most of us agree, beating the devil out of a child does not get good results and severe neglect gets very bad results.

Now, what is important for the child to learn and how does this learning happen? I am trying to get at two things. One is what kind of people do we want and how do we nurture that? Second, what kind of civilization do we want and is education for technology the best way to manifest it?

And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it.
— Wayfarer

What would you say is the most convincing case for rights? As far as I can tell whether one looks supernaturally or naturally the case is not easy. The ancient Greeks considered those with disabilities - especially speech disabilities - as either cursed by the Gods or at best deficient. There is vast variation among homo sapiens. IMHO the Bible is leagues better on disability, but rights don't seem to extend to idol-worshippers or those who practice religion differently. Rights seem to be conditional on following God. I suppose that could serve as the seed of the idea. — Moses

I want to weigh in on the notion of rights. As I reason this, we are equal under the law, but that does not mean we are the same. Individual differences may justify a difference in our rights. I did to favor the Greek perspective. We have rights based on age. Should someone with the mentality of a 4-year-old have voting rights? How about someone who has been to prison? Should immigrants who are not familiar with our institutions have voting rights? We reserve the right to drive to those who are 15 or 16 years of age and have a driver's license proving knowledge of the laws, and car insurance. We can not work in a kitchen unsupervised without a food handler's card. Many jobs require passing tests and degrees. We do not have one big free for all.

However, equal under that law is like equal under the sun. Everyone who is qualified to drive can drive. Everyone who can pay the price of a meal can eat, except for the few places that have a dress code, then a person must dress appropriately.

Aren't Christians homeschooling because they are very conservative and are scared of liberalism? — Jackson

I believe that is correct and they have good cause for that. It is not possible to have liberty without education for good moral judgment. In the US we had education for good moral judgment without relying on religion. That education, for good moral judgment, was ended with the 1958 National Defense Education Act and moral training was left to the church. Big mistake! Now we have anarchy and are on the path to a police state.

Now Christians are the strongest force for preventing education for good moral judgment because that means education of independent thinking. Although Christians like to believe we have democracy because of them, they are actually authoritarian because human nature can be pretty bad. The philosophers thought that was so because of ignorance and that education could resolve that problem. Christian mythology is tied to superstition and notions of good and evil spirits. and a need to be "saved" by a divinity. Their understanding of education is indoctrination and public schools are materialist institutions that are harmful or perhaps essential to materialistic success, There seems to be zero understanding of what education has to do with democracy.

You see how these two are linked. What you're getting at here is the question of moral realism - are there standards and mores that are universal in scope, or are all such ideas social constructs or a matter of individual predeliction?

Secular cultures tend to instinctively reject, or at least call into question, any idea of 'Divine Law'. So as an alternative to that it seeks biological reasons, or evolutionary reasons, or at any rate something that can be grounded scientifically as distinct from in what is thought of as religious lore.

Which is quite reasonable - as far as it goes. But as you're asking fundamental questions, it would be worth taking a wider view. What, after all, is 'the phenomenon of man'? I suppose that's a kind of 'why are we here?' question. There's no easy answers to such big questions, but it's worth calling out the fact that the general consensus in scientific cultures is the belief that life is a game of chance (oh, and the ability to adapt and survive, which generally translates into 'success'). In the presumed absence of a 'higher power', life is something that seemingly just happened. And that has consequences of its own. One of the common responses is that we 'create our own meaning'. In other words, the answer to the question 'why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'. But then, if there are no templates or patterns around which to base a response - and there's precious few in consumer culture - then it's a much bigger question than it looks.

So - it might be something more than 'individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced'. It's where such questions as natural law, human rights, and many other large topics intersect. (I'm not trying to give answers here, just teasing out the question.) — Wayfarer

I love your post. As all animals of a species tend to behave the same, so do all humans because they are social creatures dependent on each other. The rules for civilizations are the same around the world however they can be variations. Some civilizations are more authoritarian than others, some are more liberal, some are more secular and some are more religious, and they have different myths but all the myths prepare the people to live together with a degree of human decency.

The world's religions are similar in many ways; scholar Stephen Prothero refers to these similarities as “family resemblances.” All religions include rituals, scriptures, and sacred days and gathering places. Each religion gives its followers instructions for how human beings should act toward one another.

Religion and Identity | Facing History and Ourselves — Facing History

I don't think believing in the laws of nature is so different from believing in divine law, but in the US there is little understanding of deism and almost no understanding of what Greek philosophy has to do with democracy. The Greeks and Roman philosophers were working with a notion of unversal law. Cicero a Roman statesman was essential reading for anyone wanting to understand democracy and his quotes are here... https://www.quotetab.com/marcus-tullius-cicero-quotes-about-law and as you said looking for nautres laws and biological explanations. So it is both better medicine and our laws for living together. But in Greek philosophy, even the gods could not violate the laws of nature. I don't think a god that creates miracles and can violate laws of nature does not come from the Greeks philosophy. Drawing the line between secular and divine can be tricky because we did begin with notions of gods and calling on them does work.

The laws of nature are a higher power. They are a higher power than a god. There is no god who can protect us from damage caused by global warming. A belief system that turns people against science is a human tragedy.

I see another problem. Roman was very materialist. By that I mean they believed in matter not spirits. But notions of spirits came from the east. Ouch, my head hurts trying to figure out how to say what I want to say. Romans adopted other people's gods but it did not have the Greek words needed to understand a god with 3 aspects, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so they fought each other over it Jesus was the son of God or God. Language is so important to all this and I am not coming up with the right words so I will jump to the East.

Tao or Dao is the natural order of the universe whose character one's intuition must discern to realize the potential for individual wisdom, as conceived in the context of East Asian philosophy, East Asian religions, or any other philosophy or religion that aligns to this principle. This intuitive knowing of life cannot be grasped as a concept. Rather, it is known through actual living experience of one's everyday being. Its name, Tao or Dao (Chinese (help·info)), came from Chinese, where it signifies the way, path, route, road, or sometimes more loosely doctrine, principle, or holistic belief.[1] — Wikipedia

That is a different language and a different understanding of everything. It is more in line with The Mayan Factor a reality of action, not materialism and concepts.

The question "why are we here?' is 'it's up to you'." assumes we all have individual egos and that is not universally true. Native Americans identified with the land and their tribe, not as individuals as your question suggests. Also since Roman, is the notion of things rather than the notion of all things being animated. The river being a spirit that is to be respected and our own spirits being the same as the river spirit. That is, we are spirits having a human experience. Your question seems to deny that spiritualism. Good grief did I totally fail to say what I am trying to say?

Dehumanizing, here, is an equivocation. It is a figure of speech, but in effect it describes a process that does not make humans into non-humans.

We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education.
— Athena

Nazi Germany was a unified follower of Hitler. Individuals had no voice.

Today, the Internet gives voice to anyone who wants to have one. Diversity under free speech is incredibly wide. Heck, we even have people who refuse to take the Kovid shot.

Education is the same as then? I wonder why you say that, Athena.

Today at least half of society's elements do not have a job. That means that half of the entire population is not directly forced into a belief, a behaviour pattern, or a plastic jar.
a day ago — god must be atheist

Do you mean you wonder why I say the US adopted the German model of education for technology for industrial and military purposes?

No one is forced to believe anything. They are programmed by education and know nothing of the drive behind this, nor how things could be different, and this is directly related to a change in bureaucracy that shifts power from the individual to the state. However, many Christians are homeschooling because they do not like what is happening in public schools.

— Agent Smith

No, technological correctness is not about being human. We are suffering from an increasingly dehumanizing bureaucratic structure over our lives. We are a mechanical society just like our world war enemy because we have adopted its bureaucracy and education.

That's a very interesting question, but really it's one of history, economics and politics. The question in the OP could be re-phrased: what makes a human ‘human’? When people are abused en masse, we say they were ‘treated like animals’ or ‘treated like they were nothing’. And equal rights relies on recognising that all humans are persons, regardless of disability or ethnicity or what have you, which is the ground of the idea of rights. So I think that's the philosophical issue behind it.

I don't say that humans have ethical standing (moral worth) as inherent. I am not sure how 'inherent' functions. As you have pointed out, that is very close positing a 'sacred'.
— Tom Storm

It's worth reflecting on the distant origins of 'essence' in Greek philosophy. It goes back, of course, to 'esse', which is simply 'what is'. The gist of the term is judgement - seeing what truly is. It sounds trite, but in the larger scheme, it might not be so simple, as any of us might be under the sway of some persuasive delusion or error of judgement that distorts our vision. (Science itself grew out of the attempt to correct for that.) But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. And that's where I think morality enters the picture - because we can envisage how things might be, or ought to be, or ought not to be. It goes with the territory of self-awareness and language, of ideas of property and justice. I think that's a plausibly naturalistic basis for ethics. — Wayfarer

Yes, the question could be what makes a human human. People talk about, it is nature and it is nurture. When I googled for more information I found the consideration of divine law as well. Divine law appears to be what religious people imagine it to be and I think it is important to have such an imagined notion of goodness because it would bring out the best in us. Teaching people to be the best they can be is like training a horse to be the very best it can be. Without the training, neither horse nor human will be the best its can be.

I do say inherit functions in humans are just like inherit functions in horses that are bred for different characteristics. Our DNA creates us with a lot of verity. Some rules such as social rules seem easy for most people to learn, and nervous people might learn to stay calm but it can be very hard for them to do that if their nervous system is high-strung like a yappy little dog compared to a Saint Bernard. Making all children sit quiet and still in a classroom is just wrong! Our education system right now is a nightmare and that is why I am writing.

"notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans." Would not the judgment depend on our own individual nervous system and hormonal condition at the moment and our age and what we have learned and experienced? This is what we need to discuss before we can have just laws and just reactions to violations of law, and just education that enables each individual to discover and develop his/her talents and interest so s/he can make his/her best contribution to society and we stop neglecting the education of those who are not going to college and stop closing them out useful and fulling lives! I don't think education for technology is taking all of that into consideration.

Is "technological correctness" a new concept? This is the first time I've heard of it. Care to explain what it is? Danke. — Agent Smith

4.9k
↪ZzzoneiroCosmDanke. I also want to know Athena's take on what "technological correctness" means.[/quote]

Something technically true is actually, really true or correct but it may not be the way people think about it. For example, although people call a tomato a vegetable, technically it’s a fruit.

A birth father may technically be your father — according to a DNA test — but if you've lived with a stepfather your whole life, he’s your dad. Things that are technically true fulfill some exact requirement. Technically, a swing set might be in your neighbor’s yard, but since their kids are grown up, they consider it yours. — vocabulary

And other explanations come up in a google search. I don't think the explanations are easy to understand without understanding conceptual thinking versus technological thinking. Understanding the difference is vital to understanding the cultural change we have had, since the best a doctor could do was be compassionate because we did not have enough information to correct the life-threatening health problem. Today, we can feel like something processed on a conveyer belt but our chances of surviving are much greater.

A concept is not a technologically correct thought, however, it may aim to explain a truth, such as why humans are moral. I don't exactly agree with that truth but it was mentioned in the thread and is an example of a concept, not a technologically correct statement.

Just for fun, "morale" is what we feel when we believe we are doing the right thing. The "e" following the word moral means coming out of. That is a technologically correct explanation of how spelling tells us something of meaning but moral is a concept, not a technological material reality. "Human" comes for words meaning moist soil, so even if we and not Christian we are using a Christian concept when we use the word "human". Believing a god made a man of mud and a woman came from his rib, is not technologically correct, but many believe such stories literally mean what they say. ? Does that make sense?

We are just on a planet. Not much more to it. — Jackson

I think how we prepare our children for life is about much more than being on a planet. If we destroy this planet and take good care of it, matters a lot.

Chardin said "God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man."

It is no longer the gods in charge but it is what we make it.

Given this is the case— yes, it’s narrow. But rightfully so— because you’re asking a narrow question: what is a human being? If we were asking “what is an animal?” then we could give human beings as an example. Or living thing. Or mammal. Or primate. But we’re not doing that— we’re asking specifically about one class of beings. — Xtrix

:gasp: You did not mention the most important characteristics. What about imagination, ability to conceptualize, ability to make moral judgments, feeling passionate about justice and liberty, and taking care of our planet so future generations can have good lives. There is no bloody way our discussion about being human is narrow, no matter how narrow-minded some people are.

The Turing Test doesn't specify the definition of a human being. I believe even garden variety computers can mimic a small child with above-average language skills. Truth be told, my laptop with the appropriate software could mimic a deranged or a specially-abled person. — Agent Smith

No, a computer is far from the human capacity for thinking. Sometimes spell check is helpful and sometimes it is very irritating. I find our reliance on computers terrifying! Spell check is better at spelling and correct form than I am but these rules are not equal to understanding concepts. The rules can prevent us from being aware of concepts. Such as the concept of "industry" is not "the industry". If spell check had control of the words I use, I would not be able to discuss concepts. Educating children to rely on this technology is education for following rules, and is not education for independent thinking.

Hello, Naxi Germany, the mother of this education for technology, and all those charged with war crimes who were in complete dismay that they would be charged with a crime when they were just following orders. Because of the education they had, they were incapable of the independent thinking required to conceptualize doing anything but follow orders. And look at this thread. Nit-picking about the correct word and stupid arguments that go nowhere, but to me, look like stupid power games, not a desire to explore and understand.

We once used the "Conceptual Method" for education, and teachers were told not to pay too much attention to technological correctness but focus on a child's understanding of a concept. I know this because I have the old books that told teachers what is important. A child could disagree with the teacher or not have the correct names or dates and be right if the child understood the "concept". Now we argue about technological correctness and the concept gets lost in this need to be "correct".

Can you feel an awareness of a difference in feeling that is also a difference in behavior?

What is the need for a definition of human in order to properly educate children? — Jackson

I don't think "definition" is the correct word for this discussion. I ask questions to get people to think about what they think. Or sometimes, I ask questions because I am really curious about what others think and experience intense pleasure when they cause me to think. I dearly want everyone to drop their concern for "technological correctness" and get into the spirit of enjoying this exchange of ideas. I totally hate the education for technology that we have had since 1958 because I hate the social, economic, and political ramifications of education for a technological society with unknown values. That is education that thinks of children as products for industry, rather than amazing creatures with great potential.

Our liberty is 100% dependent on our education to be rational, cooperative, creative, and inventive human beings. Only when our democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Only when we are prepared everyone for independent thinking are we capable of doing the thinking that raises the human potential. That is human potential not the potential of technology, to destroy or save our planet. So what is our human potential and how do we prepare our young to manifest it? How do we liberate them and maintain a social order that lifts everyone up?