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?

To know universal truth is pretty sacred to me and I have a strong preference for the secular path to knowledge and truth. Or we can ignore science and continue doing what science has told us is destroying our planet and then turn to our holy books for comfort. :brow: I often think our opinion of ourselves as intelligent creatures is highly overrated.

I do not believe there can be a definition setting out what it is to be a human and I am not an essentialist. And arguably the groups who have sought to define what is human have tended towards genocidal projects. — Tom Storm

The Greeks asked impossible-to-answer questions and then set out to answer them. That is how the progress of humanity that led to the modern world began. We need to agree on the definition of words, but starting an argument about a definition will not lead to useful thinking. It is a distracting power game that I rather we avoid. My project is education and a better world. I hope this discussion leads to useful thinking.

However, that said, intellectually disabled persons are not representative of being human. I suppose to put it in classical terms of essence and accident, their disability is an accident whilst their humanity is essential. I also agree with the Aristotelian classification of the human as 'rational animal', in that we're clearly descended from and related to all other species from a biological perspective, but that the ability to reason, think and speak distinguishes humans from other animals in a fundamental way. — Wayfarer

Some of the arguing in this thread is outside my interest, but I like your distinction of what is the essence of being human and what is accidental, such as a person without intellectual capabilities. It causes me to think and I appreciate your opening statement about those among us who are incapable of joining mainstream society. To what degree can they be socialized? How important is our socialization to being a human? Your thoughts bring to another.

I am thinking of aboriginal tribes that are destroyed by invaders who radically change their way of life, leading to the end of their social structure, and leading to alcoholism, and death. We destroyed the aboriginal tribes in North America and this caused untold human suffering. The same happened in varying degrees wherever Europeans went. It seems we have traveled the world with the opinion that our social order and values are the only legitimate ones and those who are different from us are not equal to us. They are lesser humans. I hope we do some thinking about what is essential to being a human.

↪Athena
You have asked an interesting question and it is fairly difficult because people vary so much. However, there may be some underlying aspects of human nature, or essential aspects of motivation. Maslow speaks of the hierarchy of needs which begin from physical to the social ones with the need for self-actualization as the highest ones. All these aspects may be linked to what a human being may become.

Part of the issue of what is essential to being human is the way in which life circumstances can bring out so many different aspects and education may be about cultivating the best possibilities. There is the question of nature and nurture as a questionable area with genetic determinants but what happens in early life may be extremely influential, as stressed by the child psychologists, including John Bowlby. The role of trauma may have a critical effects on core development of personality.

The process of becoming is a life long art, and what happens at any stage can either make or break a person. However, it may be that working on oneself, in spite of difficult life experiences, as the idea of 'the examined life's may be about reflection on the narrative of experience, as an important process of being human in a consciously aware way. This conscious awareness can be about becoming a person in a unique sense. — Jack Cummins

As always, your thinking is compatible with mine, which is always so surprising to me because we are so different! Why does so much of our thinking appear to be the same? Our life circumstances are very different.

Yes, I am concerned about lifelong learning and I totally believe, in the past, education for citizenship in the US was about lifelong learning. Voters are supposed to learn so they can figure out the best reasoning and base their votes on the best reasoning for what is good for the nation, not want is good for them personally at the moment. Democracy comes out of philosophy and the belief that humans can learn and live by reason. The pursuit of happiness means gaining knowledge. As you said "The process of becoming is a life long art," Our democracies are not worth defending without that understanding.

"the idea of 'the examined life's maybe about reflection on the narrative of experience," This is the wonderful benefit of having long-lived people. When we are young we need to fill ourselves up with life. Our later years are a time of reflection as we are full of life and wonder what the meaning of it is. We have so much to offer but in a technological society centered on money, what is best about being human, is wasted.

We naturally pay more attention to what threatens us so "The role of trauma" can play a controlling force in our lives, but so can a loving supportive family play a controlling force in our lives. We must keep both in mind, so we know not only want to avoid but what to seek and manifest. ‎Daniel Kahneman's books about thinking are very important to our understanding of being human and how our brains work.

Human beings can be as animals. They can be reactive and may go through life with almost zero thinking! Just because we have thoughts in our heads it doesn't mean we are thinking. Some people believe the Bible is the word of God, and others can not understand how a thinking person can believe that. How do I say this? There is a difference between holding a thought and reacting, and being a thinking person. This video clarifies the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

Pleasing God does not require thinking. In fact, the Bible is very clear about the wrong of wanting knowledge. Having a successful democracy does require thinking. Preparing the young to be products for industry is equal to training dogs. It is not education for thinking. At least not in the US. I think some countries are doing much better in preparing citizens to think.

Oh dear, I want to pull this back to what this has to do with being human. :lol: Humans come in different flavors. Some of them do more thinking than others. How we are taught to think really matters, but now I am on my soap box and that isn't what I want to do. I want to know what others think.

But in the spirit of sportsmanship — L'éléphant

I do not think any other animals can have a notion of spirits.

You all have made this thread everything I hoped it would be and more. :heart:

I've never explored this question in depth as I suspect it is largely a product of perspective and I'm not sure it is of significant use to me. I generally hold that humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. Most humans seem to require social contact and some form of validation and emotional comfort and an experience of love (however that looks for them). How do we develop our characteristics? Not sure it matters to me. In talking to people who have suicidal ideation, the most common themes (apart form traumatic histories) are that they feel isolated, misunderstood and devalued by family/friends/society. Seems to me human desire to connect meaningfully with others and how successful we are in achieving this, tends to determine whether we are content or resentful. — Tom Storm

Having a good notion of what a human is, and how they come to be as they are, is essential to education and the society it manifests. The language of the Bible and the language of science will manifest very different civilizations. Back in the day, women stayed home to care for the family and their domestic language and mental patterns were very different from the language and mental patterns of college graduates. We classify things and concepts, so we can be conscious of the things and the concepts and then manifest the civilization we value through conscious effort.

Not all people seek love. For many, what is most important is the power to get what they want. That power to get what we want is more apt to get us what we want than "love". Social status may be more fundamentally important than love? I am glad you made me aware of this in the context of this thread.

"devalued by family/friends/society" My concern is our education for technology has greatly increased the problem of feeling devalued and the violent outbreak of suicides and mass murders that we are experiencing today. Thank you for participating in this thread.

Let's see if I can tackle these ones together. Right up there with DNA is identifying the shape of the skull and the hand and footprints. I am thrilled by the explanations archeologist give for their discoveries of these things and related artifacts, such a as chipped stone, signs of a controlled fire, etc.. That kind of goes with

Since we are immersed in history, — Angelo Cannata

. There are times we conclude something is the sign of humans because of what we believe we know of the history of our development. We have determined there were different species of humans, with different characteristics, and drawing that line between a human and the more ape-like animal we evolved from is an interesting prospect.

I am not sure about language being a determinating factor? Our language and bird languages share commonalities. And back to Angelo's concern what is that history? Sumerians did not have a language for classification that is essential to our sciences. The consciousness we have today is very different from past consciousness, and this is right up there with my concern that we can be human and not be every intelligent. All this thinking comes out of thinking about education. How should we prepare children for life? My intended goal is to break through assumptions that might be a problem when making education decisions.

Tobias
719
Essential is both scientific thinking and good moral judgment that is based on knowing truth, universal/nature's laws, and good manners. This is not materialistic but intellectual and that is the pursuit of happiness. It is the path to raising our human potential and it is worth defending. The men who understood this ended our relationship with monarchy and the Biblical kingdom of kings, subjects, and slaves. Technology can greatly benefit us or put us back to being subjects.
I am saying education for technology is making us subjects rather than free citizens. Education for technology has always been the education of slaves. Liberal education is for free men.
— Athena

Essentially I agree with you. I see a number of tenets in your post that would be important when we want to change things, please correct and me and fill in the list further:
1. The focus on technology should make way for ctizenship and reflection
2. The ideals should be democratic and inclusive
3. The teaching should be secular, though good manners and love for other should be instilled
4. intellectual progress should be emphasized over material progress
5. Virtue should be taught like in ancient Athens but without institutions like slavery.

This is what I got from your posts on the subject. I agree with this general inventory, but there are a number of questions and tensions that needs to be resolved.

1. Contrary to Europe the US could do without education for technology. People could live of the land as there was plenty. Europe was a continent densely populated with warring states vying for dominance. Now, also in the US let alone in Europe it is not possible to live of the land. Neither are people satisfied anymore working on conveyor belts in taylorist and Fordist fashion. Technology is needed to make modern urbanized society function and maintain the level of wealth people are accustomed to. So what would be the role of technological education in the reformed education system?

2. The cultural model is still very Western oriented and also rather idealized Western. It refers back to the Greek times like we imagine them to be. However we live in a pluriform society now. How do we incorporate African, Asian, Islamic and native American traditions in an education system that is inclusive an democratic.

3. What is the relationship between community an independency/ autonomy? The ethical outlook you describe to me makes me think of American values as independence and autonomy, providing aid to each other in the spirit of fellow travelers on a road to prosperity. That image is appealing but in our densely populated cities with high crime and poverty rates, a sense of community is necessary. How and to what extent do we incorporate that?

4. intellectual progress should be valued higher than material progress, but there are many people in dire material circumstances. The intellectual can only thrive when material needs are met. Moreover in our current day and age, material gains a seen as a measure for success. What measures for success might be adopted and will have an appeal to compete with material wealth?

5. What virtues should be taught. You refer to Aristotle, but Aristotle defended slavery and the subjugation of women. That has of course for a large extent to do with the age in which he lived. However, his philosophy tends to favor a certain style of dominance. He emphasized the active formative principle, over the passive material principle. Form determined matter. That division can still be seen today in how we deal with nature with nature for instance, leading perhaps to 'education for technology' . Moreover, earthliness and femininity were over the ages considered as connected, leading to the skewed vision of men being rational and in charge and women in the care of the household and fertility. We can therefore not simply copy Aristotle's virtues. What virtues do we teach?

Those are some consideration I have when reading your ideas. It is not meant as criticism of them, but to chart out some avenues to take them further and make them more concrete. — Tobias

Wow, I like that list, and today different thoughts come up. Especially this one leaps out at me. "intellectual progress should be emphasized over material progress." That is exactly my impression of what democracy is about, the development of intellectual progress. That was about the humanities which then manifest a culture for being the best human beings we can be. That is collectively not just individual superiority. Our old textbook stressed the importance of cooperation and sharing, but this also comes with not taking something for nothing. We developed a good human nature and then took it for granted.

I think we are now stressing competition, not just in school but throughout our country. Competition is supposed to reduce cost, but at what cost? Nurses began fleeing from our hospitals when the departments were pitted against each other, in a competition to do more with less. Nursing is about caring and in the past they worked cooperatively. With the change came hoarding supplies and no longer sharing or cooperating with other departments. Now even though we graduate many nurses, we don't have enough of them, and for the same reason, we graduated many teachers and don't have enough of them. When our medical people and educators are working for a monetary reward instead of intrinsic satisfaction it is destructive to work morale and the quality of caring. The problem of burnout is increased because the worker is being fed that intrinsic joy of work.

You ask, "What is the relationship between community and independency/ autonomy?" Family is about more than the individual and so is being a teacher and a nurse about more than the individual. Actually, any job can be about everyone and a good community because there can be intrinsic pleasure in doing just about anything. Or any job can lead to resentment and hating one's life. It is what we make it. To love being an American is to love what we stand for and feeling a part of something much bigger than ourselves. This is all about relationships. And when technology and profits were applied to our medical care, and education, they became dehumanizing. I don't mean individuals are less likable but that work situation is less likable. Enjoying our jobs depends on two things, having a positive attitude and a positive work environment.

The democratic model for industry is more like a family where everyone cares about each other and the shared goal of the business succeeding. In the US we have autocratic industry where often managment and labor are pitted against each other. That is very destructive to individuals, families and our whole nation.

The US has started marginalizing people as Europe did. We can't do anything without someone checking our ID and all our credit and criminal records. I remember when we had real protection of our privacy and only when we applied for high-security jobs were the records opened. I remember when we were judged on our character, not our wealth or specific work experience. Most jobs can be done by normally intelligent people, and as a nation can benefit from commerce and immigrants, so can most organizations benefit from new blood and different points of view. When the job is open only to the person who has been specialized and has had specific work experience, there will be stagnation and a lot of unemployed people.

Some colleges are realizing practices that keep people closed out, have a serious downside. And this is not just about the colleges or employers and individuals. It is about our culture and the health of our civilization. I am saying being technologically correct can be destructive and this increases all social problems. When using the democratic model, the doors are open and the training is ongoing and inclusive. By inclusive I mean, we can learn how the whole operation works and the individual has a chance to hold any position. People are not specialized, narrowly defined, and marginalized. Getting ahead in life is just a matter of developing our talents and interest and being likable people.

Blocking people from college educations and opportunities goes against democratic values, but our technological society began running on technology instead of human values. We are now smart but not wise. I would not be surprised if we continued to develop the problems Nazi Germany had. The mindset of technology and superiority and control, control, control has consumed us and is hurting us.

Essentially I agree with you. I see a number of tenets in your post that would be important when we want to change things, please correct and me and fill in the list further:
1. The focus on technology should make way for ctizenship and reflection
2. The ideals should be democratic and inclusive
3. The teaching should be secular, though good manners and love for other should be instilled
4. intellectual progress should be emphasized over material progress
5. Virtue should be taught like in ancient Athens but without institutions like slavery.

This is what I got from your posts on the subject. I agree with this general inventory, but there are a number of questions and tensions that needs to be resolved.

1. Contrary to Europe the US could do without education for technology. People could live of the land as there was plenty. Europe was a continent densely populated with warring states vying for dominance. Now, also in the US let alone in Europe it is not possible to live of the land. Neither are people satisfied anymore working on conveyor belts in taylorist and Fordist fashion. Technology is needed to make modern urbanized society function and maintain the level of wealth people are accustomed to. So what would be the role of technological education in the reformed education system?

2. The cultural model is still very Western oriented and also rather idealized Western. It refers back to the Greek times like we imagine them to be. However we live in a pluriform society now. How do we incorporate African, Asian, Islamic and native American traditions in an education system that is inclusive an democratic.

3. What is the relationship between community an independency/ autonomy? The ethical outlook you describe to me makes me think of American values as independence and autonomy, providing aid to each other in the spirit of fellow travelers on a road to prosperity. That image is appealing but in our densely populated cities with high crime and poverty rates, a sense of community is necessary. How and to what extent do we incorporate that?

4. intellectual progress should be valued higher than material progress, but there are many people in dire material circumstances. The intellectual can only thrive when material needs are met. Moreover in our current day and age, material gains a seen as a measure for success. What measures for success might be adopted and will have an appeal to compete with material wealth?

5. What virtues should be taught. You refer to Aristotle, but Aristotle defended slavery and the subjugation of women. That has of course for a large extent to do with the age in which he lived. However, his philosophy tends to favor a certain style of dominance. He emphasized the active formative principle, over the passive material principle. Form determined matter. That division can still be seen today in how we deal with nature with nature for instance, leading perhaps to 'education for technology' . Moreover, earthliness and femininity were over the ages considered as connected, leading to the skewed vision of men being rational and in charge and women in the care of the household and fertility. We can therefore not simply copy Aristotle's virtues. What virtues do we teach?

Those are some considerations I have when reading your ideas. It is not meant as criticism of them, but to chart out some avenues to take them further and make them more concrete. — Tobias

1. The focus on technology should make way for citizenship and reflection.

It is a good thing this is a philosophy thread because people here may understand a different point of view. As I see the problem it is confusing technology with science.

Science comes out of philosophy. It is an art of asking questions and a method for finding the answers. Technology is just facts. You memorize the facts and follow the instructions and all is good. When Germany's war criminals were put on trail, their defense was they were just following orders. Tragically the world is not understanding that they were educated to follow orders and not to think. "Mine is to do or die, not to question why". Education for technology is not education for thinking. It is education for memorizing, being programmed and following orders, and relying on "experts". A result of this education is storming the Capitol Building when a president of the US told his followers to do so. Hilter would have to admire Trump's accomplishment. Trump was sure pleased with himself. People today are followers, not thinkers. They were not taught to think as our young were taught to think when we used the "Conceptual Method" of education.

So what would be the role of technological education in the reformed education system? — tobias

A RETURN TO THE CONCEPTUAL METHOD OF EDUCATION. Teach children how to think and help them know themselves before taking the next step of becoming an adult.

2. How do we incorporate African, Asian, Islamic and native American traditions in an education system that is inclusive an democratic. — Tobias

I am glad you are aware of Athens' role in the manifestation of western culture however that awareness seems limited and useless when it comes to understanding democracy. Truth is universal. A 3 is a 3 for African, Asian, Islamic, and Native Americans. Humans are born dependent and this is true for African, Asian, Islamic and Native Americans. Scientific truths are universal. What separated western civilization from the east was thinking in terms of universals. It is this way because nature makes it so. This was a break from the rest of the world and a belief in gods. Egypt and Persia had amazing civilizations and a lot of technology, but technology is not science. You can do your thing as you believe a god wants you to do, but that is not going to work as well as knowing the relationship between cause and effect, science. Our focus needs to be on universal truths.

3. a sense of community is necessary. How and to what extent do we incorporate that? — Tobias

Science is proving a sense of community is essential to our health and happiness. And through science, we know, that large, dense cities are dehumanizing and civility breaks down. We need to use science for better social organization and I believe this will resolve many human problems. We have experience with communes and planned communities. However, China is ahead of us when it comes to connecting people. They are working on a building that can contain a small city and they are building a new silk road that could greatly diminish the power of the US. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative . For sure your question is one we should think about, and the answer will not be education for technology. It will be education for humanity. As in learning the humanities.

What is the simple definition of humanities?
humanities, those branches of knowledge that concern themselves with human beings and their culture or with analytic and critical methods of inquiry derived from an appreciation of human values and of the unique ability of the human spirit to express itself. — Brittannica

4.

What measures for success might be adopted and will have an appeal to compete with material wealth? — Tobias

The best thing we can do is educate our children to consider the answer.
Not that long ago few people expected to have big incomes. We didn't buy a lot for our families and we relied on them almost completely for our joys in life. Many people have thought what matters most is meaningful work and women worked for very low pay caring for others because it gave them a sense of purpose. We were proud of our national and community parks that were open to everyone because they were free to all. We did not close the disadvantaged families out. What does a great nation do? What do people who love humanity do? What values do we want? We have gone long enough with education for a technological society with unknown values. It is time to question our values and why we took the father out of the home and now take the mothers out of the home too. Really is this what is best for humanity?

5.

What virtues should be taught. You refer to Aristotle, but Aristotle defended slavery and the subjugation of women. — Tobias

You are asking me a mear woman? :lol: If I had my way all decisions would be based on what is best for the children. I think the Cherokee had it right. Let the women rule, but leave some responsibilities to the men. But that is different from seeking truth and I think that is equally important.

On the wall before me is a list of 52 virtues. That is not all the virtues but the list is adequate. Children should learn all the virtues and how to use them in their lives. This must be a daily practice so that this virtuous thinking is a habit that automatically comes up when triggered. Confucius and Aristotle spoke of the importance of developing good habits, virtuous habits. We used to think virtues were synonymous with strength.

How about this, it is off subject but your questions stimulated the thought. What if we are in the resurrection? The resurrection is the work of geologists and archeologists and related sciences.
Possibly all souls are being reborn at this time. What if, it is our duty to learn all we can and to rethink everything we think we know? :wink:

ssu
5.8k
a growing conflict between sophisticated, cosmopolitan people
— Athena
I think this is a general way populism works. The populist favors "the ordinary people" and creates a dividing line between the people and the elite...or people they call as the elite. Now this elite can be the political, the financial, but also the educational elite. Hence if a leftist or conservative / nationalistic political movement can be very popular in academic circles, a populist movement isn't as it likely will depict the "academic world" as part of the problem. — ssu

:grin: Can we have something like a supreme court that decides what knowledge and education is good for democracy and what is not? When Bill Clinton was our president in the US, I noticed schools were teaching good character. That is education for democracy. It is learning virtues and good character and today we use the term life skills.

That NSDAP gathered it's first support in beer halls in Munich shows the populist approach of this movement.

And in any way, populist movement intend to annoy "the elite" with their crude message as they do want to divide the people to us and them, not to gain overall popularity in all sections of the population._ssu

Why do you know such things? I would not be repeatedly trying to discuss what this thread is all about if it were common knowledge. Is it common knowledge where you are? Do the schools teach that history? The US is sooo narcissistic that it can not see what is happening because they only know their own history, not what happened to Germany.

I do see Marx and Prussian as complimentary. The military takes care of their own. There was a shift from the military being rather limited, and certainly, the officers were an exclusive group of people above the peasants, to a greater equality created by technology and wars that involve everyone as a military-industrial complex. Economic decisions are vital to the military-industrial complex.
— Athena

Do note that this changed already during the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon and Revolutionary France gained such powerful military because implementing an universal draft and making military service compulsory. And also creating the "wartime economy", start of the military industrial complex. The other militaries of the time had been smaller professional armies. The defeat to Napoleon was the initial start for Prussia to reform it's military, starting with mimicking Revolutionary France with the levée en masse, the universal military conscription, and carrying out several reforms like creating the Auftragstaktik, which then became the "Prussian Model". — SSU

We almost have a disagreement on this point. It is not a disagreement on facts but on meaning. What you said is true but it misses the point of what I said. A military-industrial complex is about more than the military. This relationship between the military, industry, and government is what makes the Prussians stand out and is what makes the political organization, and decisions about such things as education, stand out as unique to Prussia and Germany until the world followed their example. A good economy is more important to the modern military than the number of young people who can be sent to the frontline because the fighting men have been replaced with weapons. We don't see this in Ukraine as we saw it in Iraq and Afghanistan. We dropped million-dollar bombs on Iraq, and what we do is tied to our technology. Next to wanting every man and woman fully employed to support the modern military, their children are educated for technology to serve military and industrial purposes which are organized by the government as they never were before adopting the German model of bureaucracy. I am saying every citizen today is serving the beast, not their families, and they don't know it.

German had workers' compensation, and a national pension plan, and a national health plan, and a healthier population than Britain had when war began. That gave Germany a very important military advantage.
— Athena
And it should be noted that for example the national pension plan was made by Bismarck, one of the most conservative figures in German history. The thinking was more to counter the demands (and the threat) from the socialists than to embrace government welfare thinking in my view._ssu /quote]

That was perfectly said. :grin: Yes, Bismarck was trying to appease the socialists, and appeasing the people works very well. Charles Sarolea was a Belgian philologist and author who tried to warn the world Germany was preparing for war the first world war. He was very concerned that Germans submitted to the domination of Prussian. I see it all today as the people of the US submit to the military-industrial complex and a man like Trump comes to power because that is what power-hungry people want. Christians strongly support him as their ministers tell them how to vote, and the words of Jesus seem to be forgotten. Especially in Texas where the law now pays people to report on anyone involved in an abortion. Jesus was very clear about the wrong of reporting people to authority, but we are overstimulated and grossly unaware. The power of the state is excessive.

Tobias
709
I agree with you for a very large part. I guess the erosion happened before the onset of the Reagan/ thatcher years and maybe before the onset of the sixties. These phenomena would then be symptoms of our technological age. It is still a thorny issue though. The German philosopher Martin Heidegger had a very similar critique of technological society as what you give. We have eroded our ability to ' let things be' and came to see them as resources, as objects with which we could wield power. I think his critique holds water. The problem is it drove him straight in the arms of the Nazi party because he thought both the US and Russia were ' metaphysically the same' i.e. overtaken by the wish to produce.

Therefore, even though I really like your critique, it is always tricky to point out where it exactly began. Heidegger had these views in the 1930s... The uncorrupted society and nature has been a theme in 20th century Western consciousness. All too often it is forgotten that that society, in which we taught for citizenship was hardly inclusive. Only in todays mass society do we have really a mass citizenry. Hitherto citizenship was only for the happy few, the well to do and in the US the White Anglo Saxon and Protestant. The dark side of the coin of the old days is easily overlooked. What you call 'culture' another class of people might call oppression. Culture was only homogenous in tribal societies. A monolithic culture in a country that is a melting pot of peoples can only be sustained by domination of a certain class who determines what 'culture' is.

Nonetheless, I share much of your critique. I am also thinking of ways a new 'metaphysics of culture' that is, a binding force drawing people together, might emerge. I think it is indeed not around technology or technological education. I also do not think a return to the past is the answer. — Tobias

Many people have said what you said and assume returning to education for democracy and good moral judgment means returning to the past. I do not know why they make that assumption. It is a belief that is devoid of understanding democracy and Aristotle and Cicero. It is failure to understand Jefferson's meaning when he wrote of the pursuit of happiness, and understanding the pursuit of happiness is tied to not allowing everyone to vote. And lastly what part of being excluded because I am a woman do you think I have forgotten? Hell, my best friend told me I should stop reading because my husband didn't like me reading and when I returned to college, my father told my husband that he should be the one in college, not me because he is the man. My father guided his son into engineering. He would have nothing to do with me studying anything besides home economics. I remember well when our society was organized along the lines of Aristotle's belief that a man should have a wife, an ox, and a slave. The men in my life were like slave owners when everyone expected women to behave like slaves and obey the head of the male house.

Before 1917 the purpose of education was to teach good citizenship and Americanize immigrants as Jefferson understood the necessity of education in a democracy. We did not have vocational training until 1917 and that was because we had not developed technology and didn't need people prepared with vocational training until we entered WWI against Germany, a nation that, thanks to the Prussians, had long had education for technology for military and industrial purpose.

Many immigrants had no experience with democracy and education had to teach them about our very different institutions and the Protestant work ethic was a big concern. As religious as the Puritans were, they were intently focused on being industrious and accumulating wealth because of Calvinism and believing only a few people were chosen for heaven, and how well a person did here on earth was proof of them being favored by God of not. They set what was to be the American culture and Protestant work ethic. But this was religion, not technology and the obscene drive for wealth we have today. :worry: Am I making any sense? Yes, that was very White Anglo-Saxon Protestant exclusion. It was more religious than secular Greek/Roman democracy.

The US imitated both Athens and Roman and I have a problem with the Roman/religious influence. Cicero, a Roman statesman wrote a lot and his books were essential reading when we had classical education. No one saw democracy in the Bible until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics. To this day, we are ignorant of democracy without that literacy.

BOTTOM LINE-
Essential is both scientific thinking and good moral judgment that is based on knowing truth, universal/nature's laws, and good manners. This is not materialistic but intellectual and that is the pursuit of happiness. It is the path to raising our human potential and it is worth defending. The men who understood this ended our relationship with monarchy and the Biblical kingdom of kings, subjects, and slaves. Technology can greatly benefit us or put us back to being subjects.
I am saying education for technology is making us subjects rather than free citizens. Education for technology has always been the education of slaves. Liberal education is for free men.

Isaac
7k
the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the i958 National Defense Education Act replaced domestic education the US had with Germany's model.
— Athena

Directly contradicts...

I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies.
— Athena

The 'culture [you] had' was the one which decided to 'adopt the German model of bureaucracy and replace the domestic education the US had with Germany's model'.

If the 'culture you had' was so great as to lament its loss, then how come it made such a 'terrible' choice? It was clearly either stupid, or unethical, neither worthy of lamenting the loss of. — Isaac

What do you mean by "Directly contradicts"?

I would not say that civilians chose anything except to win the second world war and then to defend against the communist who came to power with violence. The Soviet Union held a philosophy of violently imposing communism on the world and the world knew they had the technology for atomic bombs. Sputnik proved they also had the missile technology needed to send atomic bombs anywhere in the world the communist wanted to drop one. The 1958 National Defense Education Act was the result of Sputnik. That act had a four-year limit but obviously, it became a permanent change in education.

None of this was an intentional change in culture and that is why I write. I can not think of one decision voters have made, except to elect leaders and some states agreed to give women equal rights and to end segregation. I don't think there was much thinking about either of those radical cultural changes but they were reactions to education for democracy, except in the Southern Bible Belt where religion results in conservative thinking. So one reason to change was to make our democracy more equal, but the South has opposed both equalities for women and people of color, conserving a culture with some democratic notions but mostly built on conservative religious reasoning much as Muslim radicalism prevents equality.

I mean voting for progressive changes in our democracy may not take into consideration negative consequences. A big negative consequence is an amoral society and increasing anarchy resulting from no longer preparing the young for citizenship and leaving moral training to the church. It was not an intent to destroy our culture but to make it better, more equal, and more democratic.

Tobias
707
We are no longer teaching national values when we enter wars and I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies.
— Athena

I do not now your age exactly, but culture is no monolithic entity. My mother is born directly after the second world war. She grew up in the 60s and lived in the 70s... there were so many cultural strands, the rise of the left, flower power, pacifism, conservatism, militant anti- communism... Which 'culture' would it be when your generation is gone? I think the culture you refer to has been taken down already by a double punch: flower power from the left and chicago school shareholder capitalism from the right... — Tobias

The 1958 National Defense Education Act happened before the 60's and 70's. That act ended the transmission of the culture, that Eisenhower called our domestic education. Moral education was the left to the church as though that could do for us what education for citizenship was doing for us.

We began educating for a technological society with unknown values. That's what we have now. A technological society with unknown values and no one prepared to establish national, secular values.
Hopefully, this forum can begin resolving that problem.

↪Athena Referring to the Prussian military model I really didn't think about Max Weber, actually. After all, there are different models and ideologies that are German / Prussian. Starting from the fact that Karl Marx was born Prussian! (But for some reason we don't look at Marxism as part of the cultural heritage Prussia has given to the World)

But yes, Weber is also one of my favorites and his views have been very influential. Indeed in his works on bureaucracy are important as it's been a framework on how bureaucracy has been studied. It's not only that Americans have adopted Weber, it's quite universal at least in the West. The faceless Weberian bureaucrat has been seen an antidote antidote patronage, nepotism and corruption. Of course as person living in the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries he didn't live to see what modern bureaucracies developed into (someone as smart as Weber could have made interesting observations) and for him modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world. We have to understand that a professional, impartial and meritocratic government bureaucracy have been the exception throughout history. In Weber's time there was in Germany still the Kaiser and when you do have an autocrat, bureaucracy can be passed by going directly to the monarch. Hence sociologists that lived in the late 19th Century had still much things around from the past like the last remnants of feudalism in their day to day life. — ssu

I do see Marx and Prussian as complimentary. The military takes care of their own. There was a shift from the military being rather limited, and certainly, the officers were an exclusive group of people above the peasants, to a greater equality created by technology and wars that involve everyone as a military-industrial complex. Economic decisions are vital to the military-industrial complex. Communism is also about economics and the well-being of everyone. These concerns are not like apples and oranges but what kind of apple do you like best. German had workers' compensation, and a national pension plan, and a national health plan, and a healthier population than Britain had when war began. That gave Germany a very important military advantage. America followed that example, short of the national health care, but it did pay a lot of attention to physical education when war was on its mind before our focus on technology decreased the need for healthy young men to send into war.

"and for him (Weber) modern bureaucracy was part of the modern industrialized world." That modern industrialized world is a military-industrial complex.

I am quoting from Wikipedia to ask a question.

The full name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English: National Socialist German Workers' Party) and they officially used the acronym NSDAP. The term "Nazi" was in use before the rise of the NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person, a yokel. In this sense, the word Nazi was a hypocorism of the German male name Igna(t)z (itself a variation of the name Ignatius)—Igna(t)z being a common name at the time in Bavaria, the area from which the NSDAP emerged.[11][12][/quote

The link may say even more important things, but what jumps out at me is "Nazi" was a derogatory word meaning backward farmer or peasant. Trump appeals to these people. He was a Wrestlemania star
It is a total humiliation to have a president who behaves like this, and he still has a large following. — Wikipedia

Hitler began in the countryside, not in the cities. We have a growing conflict between sophisticated, cosmopolitan people and those who are not, those who favor their religious beliefs and those who favor science. Some people are strongly opposed to opening our borders to immigrants, while some are in favor of immigrants and even see them as a wonderful addition to our diversity. Some want to hide the shame of slavery and discrimination and others want to resolve these problems. You mentioned being community-minded and I think country folk are community-minded, but we didn't live close together in little towns and live separate from our farms as Europeans did. We lived on our farms and separate from each other. We have been proudly independent. We had church charity and to this day many people in the US are opposed to government services. Especially Mormons are opposed to relying on the government. The whole Republican Party puts the concern for the budget before concern for saving lives. These are strong conflicting ideas of right and wrong and this kind of conflict can beg for a Trump or a Hitler to take control and end the conflict.

Then comes covid those who accepted isolation and wearing masks and those who did not. Many saw the scientific point of view as just government spinning out of control and wanting to control us, instead of science and wanting to get control of a virus. This is a life and death matter with serious economic ramifications and therefore it is not easily ignored. Add to this global warming and a war that demands our attention and it is like being in a pressure cooker.

What are the characteristics of good citizenship? What are the characteristics of good leadership? I was amused by this last election. For the first time, we had candidates promoting themselves as people of science, and my vote was based on my faith in science and fear of those who vote as their minister tells them to vote. When we fear our neighbor's decisions are harming us, it is hard to have a good sense of community. The different reactions to covid were life-changing. I have become intolerant of Christians and this really bothers me. Is Europe more secular than the US? I think this has very strong education and political ramifications. If we did not rely on the churches for moral education perhaps we would return to education for citizenship. I think this is essential.

Did you jump to a conclusion about me without asking questions? I think most of us have the bad habit of jumping to conclusions without asking questions. I am working very hard to break that bad habit and heaven knows, breaking bad habits is very difficult.

As for evil being a thing, I think Mongols and plagues were seen as evils or as God's way of punishing people. A problem with Christianity is one can not be sure if it is Satan or God causing terrible things to happen. A violent spirit that leads someone to kill others is an evil thing and I don't think people choose that. Such people may believe they are possessed by Satan. They may actually want to be stopped from acting on their thoughts and feelings. I don't think these things occur for supernatural reasons but I think some believe it is all caused by good and bad supernatural beings.

Thanks to @Banno for one of the most important defenses of those caught up in Naxi Germany, that I have ever seen. https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil

The Nazis in general were not evil people but people educated to be controlled and were controlled by the bureaucracy above them. Almost the same conditions as the US today because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the i958 National Defense Education Act replaced domestic education the US had with Germany's model. The US has a different history with a constitution that assured human rights, but I don't think that history will continue to move the US in a different direction than Germany took. As many pointed out in this thread, some of the evils done were an imitation of what started in the US, such as putting native Americans on reservations, and eugenics.

We are no longer teaching national values when we enter wars and I am afraid the culture we had will be completely lost to the US when my generation dies.

Neitzche
— Athena

Nietzsche!!! :D

The post does not say much. Nietzsche might be popular in the US but only in some circles, literary criticism, as a progenitor post modernism maybe. Nietzsche is abused, used, held as a conservative and a revolutionary. But anyway, I think Nietzsche would be on your side in this debate. He abhorred mediocrity and 'herd spirit'. He admired the ancient thinkers just like you do. He abhorred democratization in the sense of populism because it made men ripe for tyrants. Nietzsche does not seem to be your target. I would recommend you to study him. Take your eyes from wikipedia and videos about the Prussian education system, and read Nietzsche. I thin you will find it wonderful.

I also do not think bureaucracy is a European disease. The US have their own fair share. Fordism, Taylorism... We are not living in the 19th century anymore, however if you want to understand it correctly, study the 19th century and study Germany, because it was the German golden age. If Germany is your enemy you have to get to know him and know the US as well. Nazism was only one side of the German coin... — Tobias

I strongly recommend you be respectful and stop using your too soon drawn conclusions as the base of your arguments. God, you really pissed me off. You make another comment like your Wikipedia insult and that will be the last time I read your post.

Banno
16.9k
↪Athena
Hana Arendt's essay on the banality of evil would be a good start. — Banno

I had time to read an explanation of Hana Arendt's essay. I love it! I think we saw it when people stormed the Capital Building in the US. I think this thinking is very much about Max Weber and the Prussian model of bureaucracy and education for technology.

I have a job that is all about compassion and it is also under the authority of a government bureaucracy and seriously lacking in compassion. At monthly meetings, I see the spirit of this bureaucracy is also capable of sending people to concentration camps. Those who are above me, work in fear of not enforcing the rules and losing their jobs or perhaps losing the whole program for everyone. They know enforcing the rules is harsh and against being compassionate, but they do it because they fear the consequences of not doing it.

Banno
16.9k
↪Athena :brow: — Banno

The question of the thread is What to do with the evil, undeniably with us?

SpaceDweller said.
"if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society.
— SpaceDweller

It is easy to hate a mass murderer and perhaps realize it is not safe to leave this person on the streets unsupervised. What made this person like this? I think SpaceDweller argued in favor of killing these people but other things also make people useless to society and is it a waste of resources to care for them?

A broken neck can leave a person paralyzed. What good is this person to society? Various things can leave a person mentally incapable of having an independent life or maybe even learning to behave like a civil human being and require them to depend on others to keep them alive. They may or may not be pleasant people. What do they contribute to society? Many of us may face the reality of Alzheimer's Disease and become a burden on others.

What is the criteria for respecting a human's life? What does this judgment have to do with evil?

I spent this morning in a mandatory meeting and we were told why the organization is having so many problems and why our superiors can do nothing about them.

A major problem is the organization I am in is dependent on other organizations and those other organizations have no interest in what our program is doing other than the list of rules. Those who make the rules for how we serve elderly people have education in public service but not gerontology (the study of aging). That is, the rules are being made and enforced by people who do not know the population we serve. This is a huge problem because being over 70 is nothing like being 35. We are working with dependent and vulnerable people and the people making the rules have no understanding of what it is like to be one of them.

The organization could be doing a lot better if it were a religious organization with a focus on giving compassionate care, instead of a hierarchy of power and legalities and rules. And leave the volunteers free to do what needs to be done. Being American used to mean being our own authority and being trusted to do the right thing but today's bureaucracy has changed all that.