Not too different. The National Socialists, Italian Fascists, and New Deal liberals developed surprisingly similar systems to inspire and control their citizens. A good book on this subject is Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. — NOS4A2

Of course, they did because they could not have the government programs without the bureaucratic organization. Germany had a better standard of living than Britain when we enter the first world war because Germany had social programs and the rest of us did not.

Knowing your population is essential to modern warfare, and what could be better than giving everyone a social security number? Numbers help keep track of things. But that is not what we thought of when we got a job and signed up for social security. Clearly, babies do not have social accounts but we are now numbering them when they are born.

I have not read your book but have a copy of "Big Government" praising the development of big government which was a republican and democrat joint effort, and I have books warning of the dangers of giving government these new powers, and also the danger of government contracts that do not end when the war ends.

I do need to point out that the correct names are Hegel and Nietzsche... Those philosophers were never very popular in the US actually. Nietzsche bore a deep mistrust of nationalist Germans. Your vew is overly cultural deterministic. Every nation is prone to fascism. Italy was a fascist country despite its Roman heritage. The US was an inch away from electing a president with fascist sympathies before the war. There is no such thing as evil Europe and benign US. the question whether fascism takes root has to do with trust in institutions, resentment of the population towards foreigners , fear of the the loss of status and longing for times gone by during which everything was supposedly better... Whether one reads Hegel or Mill does not matter as both are not widely read anyways. Fascism creeps in through the mass media, through appeal to emotion rather then reason in times of economic crisis.

It is of course always good to remain watchful. Everywhere surveillance is being strengthened and that is a worrying development. So indeed be watchful of intrusions of privacy and of the massing of state power. No state is immune, I think that is a wise lesson. However, I do not share your cultural explanation. — Tobias

I love your term "cultural deterministic". That is perfect for what I have been trying to say for years but could not think of the right words. Of course, you do not agree with what I said because you do not have the same source of information, so I hope you don't mind me sharing my sources of information.

In the past, we all were more or less flying by the seats of our pants. We adopted the German (Prussian) model of government for a few reasons. 1. Merit hiring is supposed to correct the problems with Nepotism, hiring family or people who you know, for reasons other than their ability to do the job. But what the heck, we all were doing the best we could without technological education, which brings me to the next reason. Because each person did the job the best s/he could, when s/he died or retired, it would throw everything into chaos. The next person to do the job would not have the same talents and interests and would do the job totally differently. Everyone else in the office would have to adjust to the new person. We can see this when we change presidents. The following present completely wipes out what the previous president had done, and all the people around him are changed to fit his personality and desires. Trump was really frustrated because of the limits to his power, and few of us have the power we give presidents.

The Prussian military model means that even if all your generals are destroyed, the war will proceed as planned. Every detail of the operation is planned. Every job is planned in detail so everyone who does the job will do it the same as the person before. Kings die, but bureaucracies never die.

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization was generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely. — Aldous Huxley

As Tocqueville said in his 1830 book about "Democracy in America".

After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. — Tocqueville

Tranny and Despotism have always been with us. It was just waiting for the Prussian model of bureaucracy to fully manifest. That would not be all bad because there are good reasons for the change, but when we also replaced our past liberal education with the Prussian model, we also "molded him". That is, we are not preparing our young for citizenship in the democracy we had, but in 1958 we began molding our young for the same New World Order, we defeated in war. The 1958 National Defense Education Act had a 4-year limit but became permanent. Our young are no longer prepared for leadership but to be followers. We replaced education for independent thinking with "group think", and don't you think you should die your hair green and put a ring in your nose so everyone knows you are one of them and hip.

At the 1917 National Education Association Conference, Sara H, Fahey quoted, Tagore, to explain our enemy and why we have to defend our democracy in a war. He said, "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely impersonal and therefore completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power."

I appreciate that this brings up the idea that Nazi Germany used segregationist and eugenicist United States as the model for its anti-Semitic ideal of an Aryan Germany.

I do think that there is a detrimental puritanical ideal of human society and behavior that permeates American society. I couldn't say if Germany suffers the same "super-ego" oppressive tendency.

However, I am reminded of an interesting element of American society provided by some writer I can't remember that observed the behavior of temperance rallies back in the early 20th century in my homeland of Appalachia. People would spend days railing against the evils of demon liquor and then afterwards would pick up moonshine from the local stil'.

So, the Puritanical streak in America was always something that made transgression more enjoyable.

I do think that the implicit fascist urge goes back to puritanism or the idea of purity. That there is some preordained pure position attainable by human beings. However, I also think that Americans at least - if not Germans - also tend to rebel against that. Which is why the shadow of fascism always hovers over America but never descends. — ASmallTalentForWar

I love your post. To get directly to the point, besides the Christian problem of Christians competing against other to produce the most saints and killing each other, what made Germany so powerful was the Prussian love of military might and its excellent bureaucratic organization. The Prussians applied their military bureaucracy to the whole of Germany when they took control. This is the most important piece of what I have to say.

You mentioned the Puritans but the Quakers were even more influential in creating the US democracy, and German Methodists thought they had the method for making humans better and they were not shy about forcing their method on others. Like the Evangelicals and Shia Muslims, these folks can be a problem to our democratic values, however, it is the Prussians we should study to understand why the Germans had superior military technology and were well equipped for war, and later became the nightmare of Fascism and the holocaust. It is a mix of things and what the media is not getting is what Prussian education and bureaucracy have to do with being what we defended out democracy against.

By the third century B.C., the Celts controlled much of the European continent north of the Alps mountain range, including present-day Ireland and Great Britain.Nov 30, 2017

Who Were Celts - HISTORY — History Channel

Celts and Greeks got a long, but not so much Celts and Romans. Independence and liberty go with Celts not Romans. Rome came with Christianity that means conformity and living under a heirarchy of authoirty. It is all the historical stew we are talking about. I won't argue with what you said about people fighting for liberty.

Shit I am late, bye.

This is overstating the case. At least it seems that way from where I sit. Sure, there were at the time. and there still are Americans who sympathize with the idea of 'white racial superiority'. However, racist white Americans were/are prone to be anti anything non-white, whereas the Nazis targeted Jewish people.

The history behind how this all came to be is complex, for sure, but rest assured that there is always one deep seated mechanism at work:The systematic dehumanization of the 'enemy', whomever it may be. It's much easier to live with oneself when treating others cruelly or killing them outright, if those being treated as such have been previously devalued to the point of worthlessness in the mind(s) of the one(those) causing injury. That's the key core element common between Nazi Germany, the everyday affects/effects of the systemic racism inherent to The United States, and serial killers. We've not emulated Nazi Germany to the extent you suggest.

Babies and bathwater...

Americans were in awe of Germany's modes of manufacture and production, as well they ought have been. The Germans knew/know their shit when it came to such things. Given our post war economic boom was centered around manufacturing, it made good sense to emulate Germany in that regard, for they've always been very good at it. There were Nazi scientists brought on board in order to acquire their knowledge/expertise on rockets and nuclear dynamics as well.

All this being said, circling back to the OP...

American news outlets, today, are driven by profit. Profits come from advertising revenue. Advertisers want to reach as many potential customers as possible. Therefore, advertisers will pay the highest amount of revenue to the channels whose timeslots have the largest viewing population.

Shock sells.

In the seventies, the rock group KISS put on a constant theatrical production meant to shock conservative American values, particularly religious values and mores. The attention paid to them, much of which was by those avowed to somehow rid the country of their influence, made them global rockstars. The attention...

Shock sells.

Trump just said out loud what many Americans had been saying in private for a very long time. Sadly. Sadder still, is how utterly inept the opponents of such norms have been. Then there is the deep seated issue of who decides the narrative put into the public domain.

Point is that it's not so simple as to say that The United States is in trouble because we copied Germany. — creativesoul

I agree that racism was always a problem in the US and I will go further to say especially in the South it was taught in public education. The North tried to end slavery through education but the South caught on and began publishing its own textbooks that supported slavery. However, In the West prejudice against Asians was more of a problem and Oregon had sundown laws that meant killing a person of color if s/he did not leave town by sundown. Christianity the sole provider of morality does not make democratic values clear, however, secular education did make democratic values clear, especially at times of war. Teach those values to Black folk and they start acting like they have universal human rights too. You will not find that in Germany before the end of WWII.

Personally, I think the reality of prejudice and racism is fascinating. How much of it is natural and how much of it is cultural? India has a very mixed population. Some native Americans were friendlier than other tribes. However, I don't want to stray too far from Hegal and Neitzche in this thread. Especially Hegel can lead to religious zealots and Nitsche can lead to supremacists. And obviously, if schools are not daily teaching virtues, the qualities of good citizenship, and democratic values, they are not learned. Making the problem of our slave history, and prejudice, forbidden school subjects will for sure promote the problems, and here is where Germany has far surpassed the US. Germany teaches their immoral actions against others in schools and publically makes everyone aware of the wrongs with signs and monuments. Shame on US for making change impossible. Like it is okay to make a person of color feel terrible but we must not say something that makes Whites feel uncomfortable? Perhaps a philosophy forum can deal with this better than our nation has?

What America Taught the Nazis in the 1930s - The Atlantichttps://www.theatlantic.com › archive › 2017/11 › what...
Nov 15, 2017 — In the 1930s, the Germans were fascinated by the global leader in codified racism—the United States. — Ira Katznelson

Many people, even those with no more than a passing interest in sport, have heard of Jesse Owens, the American athlete who ruined Adolf Hitler’s moment in the sun. For there can be no question that Hitler saw the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin as the ideal platform from which to amplify Nazi propaganda and demonstrate his white supremacist ideology. But Owens, the grandchild of a slave, shattered that illusion. — The Guardian

Do you see mention of "White Supremacist"? That was taught in Germany and today it is being taught in the US. Democratic values are not being taught. Some places have made it against the law to speak the truth and this is very much an education problem in some states and a freedom of speech issue. At least we should be teaching democratic values, but in some places, it is believed we have democracy because of Christianity and no one knows what Greek and Roman classics have to do with understanding democracy. Here is an interesting chart when considering how Germany influenced the US, beyond replacing Greek philosophers with German ones.

• Chart: 15% of Americans Have German Ancestry | Statistahttps://www.statista.com › Topics › United States

I am so glad you are aware of "Americans were in awe of Germany's modes of manufacture and production". That became evident when we entered WWI. One of the speakers at the 1917 National Education Association praises Germany's technological and military accomplishments and explains why our education needs to emulate Germany's. I have said this is when our public schools added vocational training. We stopped short of the technological change made in 1958 because until the technology of WWII, we thought patriotism was the strongest part of our defense and teachers were defending our democracy in the classroom, making sure everyone knew why our democracy must be defended. There are serious social, economic, and political ramifications of the 1958 change that more completely adopted the German model.

"The history behind how this all came to be is complex, for sure, but rest assured that there is always one deep seated mechanism at work: The systematic dehumanization of the 'enemy', whomever it may be. " I have to run but first I have to point out the Republican party is strongly backed the Evangelical Christians and they have made "liberals" the enemy. Liberals don't know morals you know and are evil and will destroy America if they are not overwhelmed by Conservatives. Many strongly argue the US is not a democracy but a Republic, while Christians take credit for our democracy. :joke: It is a little whacko. A uniting truth is what the 1958 National Defense Act did to bring on all these problems. But on we can mobilize for war in 4 hours and do more damage in a day than many troops could have done in weeks when we entered WWII.

:snicker: So, you, Athena, a goddess, no less, didn't help? No wonder the Romans, plagiarists, switched from Olympus to Jersualem! — Agent Smith

I knew nothing of Athena or the gods when my life went very badly and I slipped deep into Hades. Learning of the Greeks and gods came later and was my path to a better life.

I very much enjoy Bolen's books and explanations of the gods and goddesses as archetypes. I had a Demeter archetype when things went badly, and she became seriously upset when Hades took her daughter to his underground kingdom. Zeus had to help her because nothing was growing and plants and animals were dying.

The switch to Jerusalem was very much what Greek philosophy did to Judaism.

As humans we usually illustrate reality and somehow define and know how to function within that illustration of reality.

You can see it on religion, social movements, philosophies...

When used properly it helps like it helped you out of depression.

But there are lots of kinds of people... I would say I am the kind of human that doesn't easily illustrates reality or gets someone's else illustration.

Not chosen but my only way "out" of depression was and is acceptance.

I just have it and probably will not get literally out of it, but it's not completely bad. If it wasn't for it, I would have not be able to deal with things I dealt with.

I mostly see ironies in this respect.
To be grateful with depression. What an irony. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

One of my best friends seems to have spent his life in depression. He makes me laugh a lot and when I laugh he smiles. For a moment he sticks his head out of the cave and sees all the beautiful colors. He has traveled the world and knows a lot so I really like to visit with him and learn what knows, but I don't think I would want to live with him and deal with his depression daily.

On the other hand, I totally got my own moments of depression during the lockdown were helpful. It is easier to stay home and attempt to amuse myself when I don't want to go do things. How about moderation? I would not want to be carefree during a pandemic and to become part of the problem, being exposed, being infected, and spreading it to others. Perhaps becoming a burden on the medical system. Or how about being euphoric and spending too much money?! :gasp: Been there done that. Coffee can unbalance my judgment. :lol: I believe the Greeks expressed the importance of being balanced.

I think you are saying something important when you speak of not getting someone else's point of view. Being sensitive to other points of view might be very important to getting out of oneself and seeing the bigger picture?

"He who has tried the serious, is no longer interested in the joke." — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Man, to not get the joke is a serious problem! When we can no longer laugh at ourselves, we are in deep trouble, and for this reason, I wonder why we hold some philosophers on pedestals. They were seriously troubled men and can take us further into Hades instead of out of it. Comedians are often people who had terrible lives and they learned to use humor to cope with that. Some of them learned to teach us by using humor to make a point. The Greeks had both tragedies and comedies and I think this advanced their intelligence.

Greek philosophy is my chosen way out of depression. I do not know how long I was seriously depressed but when it finally ended, like a headache ending, I felt like someone who stepped out of the cave and saw sunshine and a colorful world for the first time. I had really forgotten how it felt to be happy. It was an amazing experience to see the sunshine and all the colors.

We all must go to Hades from time to time to get a sense of meaning but we should never go there without the gods (concepts for living a good life). Without the help of the gods, we get lost in Hades. That is to be depressed or worse, psychotic. At my lowest point, I thought I was possessed by Satan and that he wanted me to kill people. I was really fighting for my sanity and at that point, I had a choice to believe what religion tells us about Satan and demons, or deny that belief and search for truth. I am so glad I discovered the Greeks at this time and began my path of being my own hero.

I had some depression during the shutdown that I think was as useful as you say it is. but I never went far into Hades because I now have the gods to help me find my way back out.

I do think so. If you consider morality as objective, you can discern man-made morality as a mere illusion, a fiction, a fantasy, a false morality even. A morality which can be surpassed, not obeyed to. Every man-made moral is a moral to which you don't need to feel submitted to. An objective moral is one to which we all should conform. Which is not to say that the moral should be obeyed to. And of course, one's objective morality can be different from the other's. An objective morality gives a feeling of certainty. — Hillary

To not feel subject to our morals is to be a bad citizen. We do not make morals, but through effort we become aware of them as universal laws, and just as our understanding of science can change, so can our understanding of morals change.

A moral is knowledge of universal law and good manners.

From a naïve utilitarianism perspective, if pain is objective, morality is/has to be too, oui? :chin: — Agent Smith

.

I don't think masochism is a popular choice. I think humans are more prone to want happiness, but many get lost in Hades and without the help of the gods (necessary concepts), they may not find their way out.

It seems that you have quite a moderate idea of "objective", since a few checks are enough for you to think that something is objective. This makes the discussion very ambiguous and confused. In philosophy "objective" means absolutely, totally independent from our judgment. That's the reason why I think objectivity is just a human fantasy, since you cannot refer to anything without making it automatically related to your judgement. — Angelo Cannata

But like any science, it is not just the individual's judgment. It is a judgment civilized people share.
@ Marvin Katz's explanation is essential to democracy, which is a systematic system of raising the human potential by arguing like the gods until there is a consensus on the best reasoning.

Coming from Greek philosophy democracy is an ongoing search for truth and the object of this search is happiness, not just for oneself but for the entire social/political system. That philosophy was hijacked by Christians who then proceeded to create heaven on earth. Unfortunately, the Holy Bible does not explain universal law and the human effort as well as philosophy does, and religion becomes tribalism that stands in the way of knowing truth and manifesting happiness.

I was referring to DNA relics, if such exist, the kind that could be reactivated in order to express long-dead
phenotypes. What did humans look like 2.3 million years ago? It probably wouldn't be ethical. Can't believe I'm saying this. :fear: — Agent Smith

I see nothing morally wrong with what you are saying but scientifically there is more information.

Traces of Neanderthal DNA in some Eurasian people prove we didn't just replace them after they went extinct. We met, and we mated.

Elsewhere, DNA tells of other encounters with archaic humans. East Asian, Polynesian and Australian groups have DNA from Denisovans. DNA from another species, possibly Homo erectus, occurs in many Asian people. African genomes show traces of DNA from yet another archaic species. The fact that we interbred with these other species proves that they disappeared only after encountering us. — NICK LONGRICH,

First portrait of mysterious Denisovans drawn from DNA
Scientists analysed chemical changes to the ancient humans’ DNA to reveal broad, Neanderthal-like facial features. — Ewen Callaway

I suppose we could have fun arguing if Neanderthal and Denisovans and other extinct species along the human line had souls. By the way, genetic testing shows my family is connected with Neanderthals. Perhaps no one had souls until modern man caused the extinction of those who came before our species?

-Well to answer that you will need to define what you mean by that term.
Now the author ↪chiknsld
-"Does our soul come from an eternal source of power such as "Wille zum Leben"? Is there a connection between Aristotle's idea of the "soul" and Schopenhauer's "will to live"?
What do you think Darwin would have to say about people living in the 21st century and still believing in a "soul"? Is it possible that Aristotle was right, and that Darwin was wrong?"
Now I will ignore the pseudo philosophical nature of the options he provides and focus on error he makes.
Obviously he has never read the theory of evolution so he doesn't know that evolution doesn't address theories of Abiogenesis . — Nickolasgaspar

Our soul or our ego? Here I am thinking of the ancient Egyptian trinity. Instead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Trinity could be us. One part of this trinity dies with our body. One part of our trinity is judged and may or may not enter the good afterlife, and the final part of our trinity always unites with the eternal source/ the one and only true reality.

What might be wrong may not be not Darwin or Schopenhauer but our belief that we are our ego, All living things will to live. I am not sure there is a human soul and that animals do not have souls? I am sure whatever lives, has a will to live.

As for our belief that we have souls, am okay with that as long as we know we do not know. The belief is a possibility but not a certainty. The knowledge that I will die is easier for me to live with the possibility that my death is not the final end. For me, this is an ego problem. I don't think I want to spend eternity with my family and only my limited experience of who I am. I think I might like to be a male who is tall and strong and has a deep voice, in another incarnation. I feel sure people would react to me very differently if I were such a male and I think I might enjoy that. :lol: I have to laugh because we are so fixated on defending who we are, our space, and our time and energy, but right now many are not sure if their true self is a male or female. I am not sure what reality is but I enjoy discussing it.

But the ancients did have notions of evolution.

Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610—546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water, and only spent part of their life on land. He also argued that the first human of the form known today must have been the child of a different type of animal (probably a fish), because man needs prolonged nursing to live.[5][6][4] In the late nineteenth century, Anaximander was hailed as the "first Darwinist", but this characterization is no longer commonly agreed.[7] Anaximander's hypothesis could be considered "evolution" in a sense, although not a Darwinian one.[7]

Empedocles (c. 490—430 BC), argued that what we call birth and death in animals are just the mingling and separations of elements which cause the countless "tribes of mortal things."[8] Specifically, the first animals and plants were like disjointed parts of the ones we see today, some of which survived by joining in different combinations, and then intermixing during the development of the embryo,[a] and where "everything turned out as it would have if it were on purpose, there the creatures survived, being accidentally compounded in a suitable way."[9] Other philosophers who became more influential at that time, including Plato (c. 428/427—348/347 BC), Aristotle (384—322 BC), and members of the Stoic school of philosophy, believed that the types of all things, not only living things, were fixed by divine design.

Chinese
Ancient Chinese thinkers such as Zhuang Zhou (c. 369—286 BC), a Taoist philosopher, expressed ideas on changing biological species. According to Joseph Needham, Taoism explicitly denies the fixity of biological species and Taoist philosophers speculated that species had developed differing attributes in response to differing environments.[18] Taoism regards humans, nature and the heavens as existing in a state of "constant transformation" known as the Tao, in contrast with the more static view of nature typical of Western thought.[19] — Wikipedia

I think we need to consider ideas of atoms and energy and what would have happened to history if these ideas consumed our consciousness instead of religion?

The atomic philosophy of the early Greeks
Leucippus of Miletus (5th century BCE) is thought to have originated the atomic philosophy. His famous disciple, Democritus of Abdera, named the building blocks of matter atomos, meaning literally “indivisible,” about 430 BCE......

The philosopher Epicurus of Samos (341–270 BCE) used Democritus’s ideas to try to quiet the fears of superstitious Greeks. According to Epicurus’s materialistic philosophy, the entire universe was composed exclusively of atoms and void, and so even the gods were subject to natural laws. — Britannica

Like what leaves the universe? All organic matter breaks down and is reassembled. And if we add the science of cells to all this, our thoughts may go into how we handle our bodies when we are dead? I am thinking it might be important to expose our bodies to nature so that carnivorous animals can repurpose our mitochondria.

Sky Burial
In this ritual, bodies are left outside, often cut into pieces, for birds or other animals to devour. This serves the dual purpose of eliminating the now empty vessel of the body and allowing the soul to depart, while also embracing the circle of life and giving sustenance to animals.

7 Unique Burial Rituals Across the World | Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/list/7-unique-burial-rituals-across-the-world#:~:text=Sky%20Burial&text=In%20this%20ritual%2C%20bodies%20are,and%20giving%20sustenance%20to%20animals. — Britannica

We want to be one with God but not really. We can not be one with God and maintain our unique identity. Does not our ego hold us separate? Would not love unite us with the universe?

Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?
— Athena

As I'm sure you know, that idea has a long history. — T Clark

No, I do not know that. I know a tiny bit about East Indian thinking but not enough to claim understanding. I know there is a question about what consciousness is but not enough to know that line of thinking. I am really asking a question about our connection with the pool of knowledge that is open to us. I know we do not perceive the world as the first human beings did and I am fascinated with how our consciousness has changed. Like I don't think many of us live in fear of Satan and demons today but know in the past Satan and demons seemed very real. Before that, I don't think humans imagined things they could not see and I think they were more aware of what can be seen than modern people are. This seems potentially important.

First of all the title of the thread is scientifically wrong in relation to the opening statement. — Nickolasgaspar

"First of all" I followed the replies and got back to the above post. You do not think that statement is a concern with technological correctness? And that is very close to "political correctness" and I have some concerns about how all this correctness is manifested. Perhaps I should not make an issue out of this but it seems a little dangerous.

Thank you! I totally agree, I could never feel so arrogant about what I know when it's clear to me that my education and the people that have come into my life are truly responsible for showing me how to think properly. :) — chiknsld

I do not know exactly what you mean, but I feel strongly about proper thinking being humble and open to other possibilities because how we feel when we engage each other is as important as being correct. I am thinking culturally. "I am right and you are wrong" thinking has manifested in so much hostility and even violence. We have reactionary politics that seems explosive and a loss of community. That worries me because I think things go better when we like each other.

-weird strawman. Since when correcting the misrepresentation of a theory qualifies as "technological correctness"?? — Nickolasgaspar

Since people became concerned with technological correctness.

The issue is that Darwin could never have predicted that the soul was at the center of our true intellectuality. He seemed to be a worldly, adventurous man. He was more of a thrill-seeker than an intellectual. There is nothing wrong with that, but I would be willing to bet that he would rather romanticize the idea of the soul than to apply a scientific analysis and approach.

I feel like Aristotle was more of an academic at heart in this regard. He would be willing to apply the scientific method to discover the source of élan vital.

Darwin had something to prove whereas Aristotle did not.

What do you think? — chiknsld

I think that is an enjoyable explanation and that it is insightful to distinguish the difference between a thrill-seeker and an intellectual. I like what you said about Aristotle not having something to prove in the beginning stages of our intellectual development. I am sure they all argued but perhaps with more of an intention to explore ideas rather than prove them as we do in this technological age. I have a very old logic book that stresses the notion that there is so much more that we do not know, so we should never be too sure of what we think we know.

Whereas,

Nickolasgaspar — Nickolasgaspar

Is more concerned with technological correctness.

I like those kinds of stories too. I don't see them as in conflict with the ideas I expressed. Well, maybe they are or seem to be, but the sign of a philosopher is to be able to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at one time. — T Clark

I like your reply. A sign of wisdom is knowing how much we do not know. That is why this is one of my favorite forums. We can talk about the unknown and agree or disagree and be okay with all the different ideas. If we want to be more sure of something we can look for facts to support our notions, and we know our ideas and opinions and not absolute, undeniable, unquestionable truth.

Back to Darwin. Science is claiming some learned information can be passed on in genes and for me, that opens the door to new possibilities. Like what if our understanding of individuality is wrong? What if we are each are points of consciousness of the same universe?

This is from your Merton quote. It seems so self-important I have a hard time knowing what to say. We are not important to anything but ourselves, and that's enough. That's the way it should be. — T Clark

I like the Sumerian story that we are special to the earth because we were created by a goddess to help the river stay in its banks, so it does not flood and kill plants. I believe others also saw it as our purpose to take good care of the earth. We have the ability to create Eden but I don't think Eden looks like New York city.

Or there is Chardin's notion that God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. We have a pool of consciousness that has grown a lot since the beginning of man. That consciousness is not physical yet it strongly affects our lives.

They exhibit self-organisation, homeostasis, the ability to reproduce, evolve and mutate, and heal from injury. — Wayfarer

Thank you. With that information, I could find more and this link supports your argument.

https://lco.global/spacebook/astrobiology/what-life/#:~:text=Crystals%20can%20self%20replicate%20in,the%20species%20to%20be%20alive.

I made a statement of fact about what Darwin wrote in "Origin of Species." Any political interpretation is yours. — T Clark

I was just thinking out loud. Not drawing any firm conclusions except to recognize a political aspect to questions about what makes us as we are, besides being just a religion versus science issue.

living organisms are fundamentally different to inanimate matter — Wayfarer

This may not be the thread for my question, but I need to ask, how are living organisms fundamentally different from inanimate matter?

When I read "Origin of Species," I was surprised to see that Darwin included inheritance of acquired characteristics as a potential mechanism for evolution in addition to natural selection. — T Clark

You know this is a politically explosive issue right? It goes with a king's right to rule and slavery as a kindness to inferior humans. I think completely denying racial and class differences would be a hard stand to defend, on the other hand basing decisions on the science of inherited differences, is a very dangerous thing to do.

I think Greeks worked with a notion of individual difference and merit that is workable but then determining a person's merit is also a little problematic. Yikes, that is moving away from the notion of soul, but those considerations can make the notion of souls even more interesting.

Humans are very reactionary and their circumstances can shape them. Knowing advantaged people are shaped by their experience of advantage and things can happen to people like post-trauma syndrome and constant fear and insecurity and violence all around them can shape people differently, I find the notion of judging souls extremely unjust.

Could there ever be a unification between evolution and vitalism? — chiknsld

I think our soul can be explained with science and is best without religious or supernatural notions. For me, this is an ego issue. Are we part of the universal whole, or are we separated individuals that may or may not pass into the good life?

When speaking of Aristotle we might consider Socrates and his belief that we exist before being incarnated and know everything but forget what we know when we begin a new life. We could add concepts of reincarnation to our wondering about souls. I like the notion of reincarnation. But the following is more of a universal expression of being through science.

s a biological concept, the inheritance of acquired characteristics has had a wild roller coaster ride over the past two centuries. Championed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck at the beginning of the 19th century, it soared to widespread popularity as a theory of inheritance and an explanation for evolution, enduring even after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species. Then experimental tests, the rise of Mendelian genetics, and the wealth of discoveries substantiating chromosomal DNA as the principal medium of genetic information in complex organisms all but buried the idea until the mid-20th century. Since then, the theory has found at least a limited new respectability with the rise of “epigenetics” (literally, around or on top of genetics) as an explanation for some inherited traits.

Most recently, some researchers have found evidence that even some learned behaviors and physiological responses can be epigenetically inherited. None of the new studies fully address exactly how information learned or acquired in the somatic tissues is communicated and incorporated into the germline. But mechanisms centering around small RNA molecules and forms of hormonal communication are actively being investigated. — Lucy Reading-Ikkanda/Quanta Magazine

I am amazed by how prejudiced my mind is. I was not always so prejudiced against revealed religion. I got here because there was a time when I thought I was possessed and being controlled by Satan and seemed to have a choice of either maintaining that belief and doing something terrible or not believing that line of reasoning. If there is no Satan and no demons, I am totally accountable for what I do. I am very glad I chose against that superstition. How can such a religion be anything but superstition because totally reliant on believing in supernatural beings? Without those supernatural beings, there is no religion.

However, before science how would we understand good and evil without believing in supernatural powers? From this window of thought, I can almost think believing the Biblical explanation of life makes sense. The foundation of thinking was not science. Today we can know what I experienced was post-trauma syndrome resulting from a medical procedure done to me before I was verbal and could understand the reasoning behind what was done to me. The preverbal child knew the world through feelings. Beings felt good or bad and there is no reasoning to explain why things feel good or bad.

So back to the subject of good becoming a terrible evil, a romantic idea of Utopia leading to pain and war and killing others. The intentions are good, and good might come out of the imagined good, but there is a fault in the reasoning. I think Aristotle explored this problem with reason? Poor information leading to bad reasoning.

Their conception of the "laws of nature" is connected with the divine laws (god given rights). — L'éléphant

:yikes: Perhaps it is my prejudice that makes it impossible for me to understand how religious notions have anything to do with the laws of nature? The concept of natural law comes from ancient Athens and philosophy and always opposed superstition. We see this opposing view in Hyprocrate's rejection of the belief that the gods cause our physical conditions. At least since Heraclitus and his conception of the cosmos as interacting forces, there was an argument against the gods being in control. Laws of nature and religion are separate belief systems. Can you lead me to an explanation that made the different belief systems compatible? Like really, I am mind-boggled. I do not see the sense in thinking natural law and religion are the same.

You have to go back to how power was created back then. The monarchy and aristocracy appealed to the natural law to assert their rights to throne/power. — L'éléphant

On really? That is interesting. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived 300 years so we had time to learn more? That is assuming our bodies would not age. 300 years in the old body I have now would not be fun. But how we come to see things differently over time is amazing and the perspective of history is so helpful in making sense of it all.

The image of the noble savage is surely a romantic notion and there has repeatedly been the concern of civilization corrupting humans. I am most familiar with Locke's understanding of human nature and natural law. While I am aware of religious notions that justified the monarchy and aristocracy, I don't know of it having a connection with laws of nature? I have a notion of Christianity thinking the laws of God are high above the laws of nature and a God decides who will rule and who will serve. That notion goes against the laws of nature, doesn't it? I take issue with Christians because I see the religion as opposed to science and the laws of nature. The culture Christianity gave Europe was no better than the class society of Hindu India.

I had to look for an answer to the question stimulated by @L'éléphant and pulled from @Shwah comment about Rousseau :chin: and got this explanation from google search.... I am underlining the sentence that got my attention.

The Social Contract is reinterpreted by emphasizing its relation to Rousseau's other writings and doctrines. In the spirit of Hobbesian realism, Rousseau regards natural law and other forms of “private morality” as ineffectual, invalid, and in practice dangerous tools of oppression and subversion. But, still more realistic than Hobbes, Rousseau thinks it impossible to build a nonoppressive state on men's selfish interests alone and embraces the classical view that morality or virtue is politically necessary (as well as intrinsically good). Rousseau's doctrine of the natural goodness of man, however, which traces all vice to the effects of oppression, leads him to conclude that the non-oppression more or less guaranteed by the absolute rule of general laws is also sufficient to make men virtuous. Thus Rousseau can declare law as such (General Will) infallible and “sovereign”—and he must do so in order to protect rule of law from its greatest danger, the subversive appeal to “natural law.” — Arthur M. Melzer

Okay, what is going on with Hitler, Trump and Putin? I had a Christian friend who almost swooned when she said he was a being a wonderful Father to our nation. I was shocked when no matter how terrible the news was she continued to think very highly of him. Trump began his climb to popularity with WrestleMania where he participated in the show with the brutality that makes the show popular. It is hard for me to imagine anyone not believing he is a liar and that is a complete violation of human decency but he is so popular there is serious speculation he will run for president again. Putin is appealing to his people who want to believe he is a great leader. Hitler had a large following. Socrates was angry about Athens's war with Sparta and blamed democracy for that. How does this reality fit with what Rousseau held to be true?

I do not understand Rousseau's objection to appeals to natural law. Can someone explain?

There is no culture without a means of transmitting the culture and right now we have nothing transmitting a culture of high morality, so there is no General Will that can protect us.

You probably won't believe me if I say you can train your emotion to be "callous" but benevolent. But it would require you to detach yourself from identifying (self-identity) with what you do -- be it employment or hobby or a membership to a club. In short, you relax your views on things and always think of walking away. (I only hold jobs that I know I could walk away from when shit hits the fan and monkey wrench thrown in for good measure. Life is too short for arts, music, games, and parties). — L'éléphant

I am aware of Buddhist detachment but I am not in favor of it. I want to have a sense of purpose and the people I admired most are the ones who make a difference. I think being an informed and cultured person is important. But so did Hitler. What is the trick? Is there some way we can know a person will be benevolent and not an evil everyone will regret?

Lol. This sounds like news pundits. I don't get the "ignore list" -- I click on new posts I'm interested in. And if the posts happened to be nonsense, I just don't react to them. So I don't have an ignore list. — L'éléphant

:lol: It is an emotional self-control problem and why I question if our good intentions can lead to a terrible tyranny. Mothers can be very "nice people" with ever good intentions and absolutely terrible tyrants with their children! We need to stop thinking of tyrants as bad people because good people with good intentions can be tyrants, and that is how we come to this thread. My saving grace is awareness of my faults and learning to live graciously as a less-than-perfect human being is a challenge.

To clarify, I don't like how the things some people say make me feel and I don't like the way I react to them, so I resolve this problem by making it impossible for me to see what they said. I am working on myself to be less emotional and more rational like some of the Asian men I have met. I don't know if it is in their genes or comes from their culture, but I love how reticent they can be. I think some people hold ideas that make them more sane. I am not sure why I am so emotionally responsive but I would like to change that. And here again, is the question of Romanticism leading to trouble. Like Hitler had good intentions but those good intentions were tied to emotions that led to terrible things.

Democracy, whatever it is, seems to provide the right kinda environment for healing of a society (people can vent their frustrations. Important! Talk things out in a civilized manner. Etc.). One could perhaps look at democracy as a sanitarium of some kind for society to convalesce in). :smile: — Agent Smith

That is the ideal, but because of rhetoric and ignorance and I want to say youth, we do not achieve that ideal. Socrates blamed Athens's democracy for the war with Sparta that it lost. That led to his student Plato writing of a Republic where decisions are made by philosophers, not everyone, and later even forefathers of the United States opposed too much democracy. The US has a limited democracy because its form of government is a Republic that is closer to Plato's rule by a chosen few. And here is where we get into trouble. Communism can be compared to Plato's Republic. Communism began with slaughtering people to impose the rule of communism.

Yes but it's rousseau's general will which underlines romanticism and the wars like naziism, marxism etc — Shwah

Oh my goodness, you wrote exactly what I was thinking about just a minute ago! This is so exciting! Please say more. I am not that familiar with Rousseau and have a burning desire to know more. What is this "general will"? How is it affected and can steps such as training for independent thinking and good manners, and insisting on media principles such as presenting both sides, curb the possible destructive nature of the general will?

Thank you for these passages. The Petrarch one is what I had in mind about renaissance. Your comments are on point. — L'éléphant

That makes me happy. To me, it means, by good reasoning, we can make things better, but now I have to ask an old Greek question. How many people make a democracy possible and does a democracy become impossible when there are too many people? Oh, oh I love this. We survive the complexity of our cities by taking thinking shortcuts, prejudices, and generalizing. That means we are not really thinking 90% of the time but are reacting. We would not have enough energy to get through the day if we were actually thinking everything threw. Especially in very large populations, we must protect ourselves by not getting too involved with others. Now you can have a wave of action, such as going to war because our social nature can overrule our capability of good reasoning. When everyone is emotionally geared for war, it is a really bad idea to say "I don't think this is a good ideal." Especially not when people are not trained for independent thinking and good manners.

I bet that you tell that to everyone in every forum you visit! :smile: — Agent Smith

Absolutely not! I would not complement the people here if good thinking and good manners were common. In one forum I have at least 1/2 the active members on my ignore list and I finally stopped being active in the forum because the members argue as badly as bored kids in the back seat of a car. Commonly there is no understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. :worry: And no understanding of what good manners have to do with good discussions and all this troubles me deeply because that means a poor understanding of democracy. Which can bring us to the topic of this thread.

Democracy is built on the belief that we are political animals by nature and that we are capable of good reasoning, there, we are capable of good government and lifting the human potential. However, from time to time people enter wars believing they are fighting for the good. What started this discussion is someone questioned if Romanticism lead to the worst human tragedies such as we saw in world wars and communist take over of Russia and China. America is struggling with its own identity right now because so many people regret slavery, the destruction of native American people, and some of our own war activity. People are opinionated and are ready to kill but is their thinking well founded in facts? I think I have concern that Romanticism is not well-grounded in facts and their good intentions, but bad reasoning, can lead to human tragedy?

I'm not sure I understand this point. Please clarify as to your reaction to what I said regarding the change in wisdom.
My point in my previous post was: the enlightenment happened. Now it's our task to examine what lasting effects did enlightenment provide? Because you seem to say we should bring back the enlightenment -- it isn't an organization or an institution that could be established again. And why do we need to bring it back? It doesn't look like it had a lasting effect if we're still unhappy with the state of affairs.

The renaissance -- you're thinking that the search for scholastic knowledge, rediscovering of the ancients writings, and other arts and politics ideas are sought or willingly craved by the greater population. No. It didn't work that way. The thinkers, the historians, the scholars were the ones. They were what they were before the renaissance and because of that, this renaissance thinking happened. — L'éléphant

Oh my goodness we have different sources of information. My sources of information say a very deliberate effort was made to regain past knowledge. My source of information is college lectures but I found a link on the internet that is useful. The lecture focused more on the Italian reasons for pursuing documents translated by Petrarch. That is a memory of the glory of Rome, and I need to have cosmopolitan solutions to Italy's cities that were growing because of increased trading. Agarainian Europe with no trade was not as motivated in the beginning because the church met their needs.

More specifically, famous Italian Renaissance scholar and humanist Petrarch (also known as Francesco Petrarca) is remembered for rediscovering the earlier work of Roman philosopher Cicero. Cicero was born in Italy in 106 BC and died in 43 BC. He is regarded as one of the most masterful writers of his time and the Latin language. Petrarch’s rediscovery in the 14th century of Cicero’s letters is considered to be the spark of the Italian Renaissance and inspired other European scholars to do the same and look to ancient texts. Petrarch considered the ideas present in Cicero’s and other ancient texts as superior to the ideas present in Europe at the time of the Middle Ages. As well, Petrarch is considered to be the founder of the humanist movement during the Renaissance.
Petrarch
Petrarch Portrait from the mid-1400s.
In general, Renaissance Humanism was the study of ancient Greek and Roman texts with the goal of promoting new norms and values in society. These norms and views varied from those at the time because they focused less heavily on a religious worldview. Instead, Renaissance humanists such as Petrarch use ancient texts to promote a worldview based on logic and reason. — History Crunch

An organization that did advance ancient mysticism and knowledge were the Masons.

Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that arose from obscure origins (theorised to be anywhere from the time of the building of King Solomon's Temple to the mid-1600s). Freemasonry now exists in various forms all over the world, and has millions of members. The various forms all share moral and metaphysical ideals, which include, in most cases, a constitutional declaration of belief in a Supreme Being.[1]

The fraternity is administratively organised into Grand Lodges (or sometimes Orients), each of which governs its own jurisdiction, which consists of subordinate (or constituent) Lodges. Grand Lodges recognise each other through a process of landmarks and regularity. There are also appendant bodies, which are organisations related to the main branch of Freemasonry, but with their own independent administration.

Freemasonry uses the metaphors of operative stonemasons' tools and implements, against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple, to convey what has been described as "a system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."[2] — mystic

Public schools in the US were about liberal education based on the Greek and Roman classics and they advanced humanism along with an understanding of democracy that is dependent on literacy in Greek and Roman classics. I think such education can prevent Romanticism from becoming a tyranny or a war machine because of its focus on the individual as an authority while promoting the welfare of all. This follows from Aristotle and the notion that every species has a purpose and it is the human purpose to reason and this goes with notions of being political animals. It includes Cicero and the ideas about right reason. Philosophy gives us a totally different way of searching truth than the religions of revelation. The Bible is about a kingdom, not democracy and it is about believing, not reasoning.

I reject this. Sorry, Athena. Books and writings came about because of enlightenment, not the other way around. And no, the life expectancy at 35-45 was overblown. There are many philosophers and historians in the ancient times that lived through their 70s and 80s.
It's been written that the causes of the age of enlightenment happened in small advances in science and other field of studies, until it became a movement and reached wider audience. — L'éléphant

I did not expect anyone to accept a gerontological explanation unless they were old enough to have experienced it. Are you arguing our brains do not change as we age leading to greater wisdom with age? Of course, if a person never reads and never engages in philosophical discussions those thinking neurons do not grow and that wisdom would be very limited. But for those few who have a love of knowledge and live past 70 and 80, something awesome happens. They are no longer thinking like the warrior they once were. Now you get Socrates' arguments about justice and what is good. He has pondered those notions for many years and now people want to hear what he has to say. What he ponders is slightly different from the young man obsessed with his body, his sex life, and competition with his peers.

Not until the renaissance, printing press, and knowledge of making paper did a growing middle class have access to the ancient Roman and Greek thoughts that became the foundation for philosophy in Europe. The church developed scholasticism centered on Plato and Aristotle creating a market for the ancient books. Later, Bacon blew the door to knowledge wide open with abductive reasoning and we enter the modern age with scientific thinking. The industrial age was made possible in part by perspective art because now pictures of the plans for making machines could look three-dimensional and these pictures put in books spread the industrial technology rapidly.

thought to have been devised about 1415 by Italian Renaissance architect Filippo Brunelleschi and later documented by architect and writer Leon Battista Alberti in 1435 (Della Pittura). Linear perspective was likely evident to artists and architects in the ancient Greek and Roman periods, but no records exist from that time, and the practice was thus lost until the 15th century — Naomi Blumberg

I think what we must consider is the ingredients of thought. Why did the Renaissance spread from Italy? Because they still had ancient documents and a memory of the glory of Rome. Because they had metropolitan cities and sought the old documents that provided solutions to metropolitan problems. This was not so for the whole of Europe where besides a few technological skills passed on from generation to generation, people were relatively isolated in rural agrarian communities, the only source of information was the church that was commented to the past and saving souls for God and heaven. They were told not to be worldly and they were not intellectually stimulated until church-controlled scholasticism gave them Aristotle. And they died young.

So why were the Romans and Greeks different? There was a time when the Greeks were thought to be a race of genius and there is some excitement about questioning why they were different. Roman advanced concepts of universals and law, but they began by imitating Athens. I am saying this to compare it to living on a landlord's land and trying to exist by farming when it was not advanced and there were no books, no trade routes, nothing to stimulate their imaginations of what could be. The ingredients for thought and imagination did not exist in most of Europe before the Renaissance.

Why do we keep on praying for enlightenment? It doesn't make sense to ask for this now as we do have these things in our society. — L'éléphant

How about young people can not be enlightened as we are enlightened in our later years. How well we understand meanings is a matter of brain organization and that changes as we age. The difference between learning something and knowing the facts; and getting the bigger meaning, a kind of gestalt, probably needs to be experienced before it can be known. Because in our later years the neurons in our brains have grown and new connections are made that are not made when we are young.

When we are young we pick up new facts easier but we have more of a dictionary understanding of words. This is more so before the age of 8. Around age 8 the sheath around our neurons is complete and we become more discriminating and start questioning what we are told. Around age 25 we experience another change in our brains but our personality does not become solidified until around age 30. Later in life, all the facts and memories begin making new connections, and learning something new gets harder, like a broad river flows slower, but we can have an enlightenment experience that we don't have when we are younger. I want to say is, we went into the Age of Enlightenment when enough people got old and had the ability to communicate with each other in large cities. Leasure time and the ability to own books and write letters would be vital to this. The Enlightenment could not happen before these advancements. It sure could not happen when the life expectancy was 35 or 45 years because people died before having enough knowledge to be enlightened.

Okay I have no objection to this. We're on the same page. I'm only citing those examples that have been proven to be sensible. The calm before the storm is true -- you feel it in the air. — L'éléphant

Yes and no doubt because we understand the nature/science behind many common-sense notions we can believe common sense is reasoning equal to scientific reasoning. This is close to believing the Bible is God's truth and a better source of truth than science. Both common sense and God's truth, beliefs, can lead us to trouble when we think the reasoning is equal to scientific reasoning. The pandemic has made some of us very aware of that problem.

Interestingly as some brought out in this thread, reasoning without emotions can also be problematic! The nuclear bomb may have ended the war between the US and Japan sooner and saved thousands of lives, but who does not wish that never happened and therefore we do not live in fear of nuclear war? The US used cluster bombs on Iraq and now we hear in the news that cluster bombs are against the rules for war. Emotion plays an important part in our decision-making. That was the theme of a few Star Trek shows when Kirk was the Captain of the Enterprise.

I feel passionate about what the values of what the Enlightenment can do for us and the enlightenment as I understand it is about what reason can do for us. The Enlightenment is about universal knowledge and raising the human potential. That is a wonderfully romantic idea, isn't it? We are working towards more humane wars and the possibility of no wars. Putin doesn't see things this way, but I think NATO does? If global warming made the winters in Russia more pleasant, perhaps that would improve our relationship with Russia? Not all things about reason. Emotions are important too.