When I think of Enlightenment, I think of reason. When I think of Romanticism, I think of feelings and ideals. Maybe I've got that wrong.
— T Clark

Combine all three, and that's Romanticism. If you've read Les Miserables, that's pinnacle Romanticism. — Garrett Travers

Thank you for those comments. That is what makes Romanticism something to discuss as it looks different from different points of view. Personally, I have strong feelings about the ideals. But then I think math and science are sexy. The power of knowledge can be thrilling and is much more hopeful than a pessimistic religion about Satan. demons, and sinners.

The examples I gave are scientific facts, but we act like they're common sense. — L'éléphant

You did not watch the explanation of fast and slow thinking. There can be a big problem with believing common sense is good thinking. The video makes that very clear and it is information I wish everyone shared. A friend used to have a sign on her door saying, "Just because you think it is true, does not mean it is true." Scientific thinking questions the truth of what we believe. Common sense is accepted without question. We believe it just because we hear it all the time.

The attitude that predominates the 18th century? Where a young mind is filled with hopes, and dreams, and goodness, and yes, courage? — L'éléphant

Oh yes, I am of that mindset. Once in a while reality seems to dampen my romanticism and I have to work harder at believing what I want to believe.

this too is a romantic vision of sorts.. It's not the romantic vision of a dictator but of the idealistic parent hoping for some sort of Platonic stability that doesn't exist.
— schopenhauer1

PS that kind of thinking put in in Hades for a very long time. :chin:

I'd say there is a difference between romanticising enlightenment and rationalising romanticism. :razz: — Tom Storm

I love :heart: that statement. This forum is so much better than most forums because the people here can see the subtle differences and see things from different points of view. How can we educate for this?

That is a more personal view of romance than the op was considering. The original consideration was war for ideologies such as the violence during Hitler's time, or the violent take over of the soviet union and Communist China. A fact is when Russia agreed to tear down the wall separating Germany, it was agreed NATO would not move East. That is documented but it was not the wording of a formally signed agreement. So the argument goes those negotiating with Gorbachev did say NATO would not expand east, but that doesn't matter because those exact words were not put in the signed agreement. That is a technicality that I consider highly unethical. But now for the Romanticism....

We have another agreement problem.

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was suddenly left with the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. So it, the United States and Russia reached an agreement in 1994, known as the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, by which Ukraine would turn over its nukes in exchange for those security assurances. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/what-budapest-memorandum-means-us-ukraine/ — Washington Post

Russian media is controlled and claiming the west is violating the NATO agreement, and so is US media controlled but fortunately less so, and it is not mentioning the verbal agreement but is insisting Putin is just nuts. If we think of this in terms of people filing for a divorce we can see the romantic notions of who is being wronged and who is committing the wrong. The leaders of both countries, the US and Russia are building different understandings of reality that make it appear their side is in the right and the side is in the wrong. This happens with all wars.

We all like to see ourselves as in the right and defending what is good. This is essential to people being willing to put their lives on the line and willing to pay for the weapons of war. Trusting our leaders to do the right thing, is perhaps a very romantic notion. Looking into the Ukraine problem, I see the Israel problem of multiple agreements made depending on who is being manipulated the Jews or the Arabs. Opposing sides were led to have very different expectations, and the violence continues as people struggle to defend themselves. Having blind faith in our leaders is romantic. We need to demand full discloser of negotiations. Not just what does the official signed agreement say, but what was said to get everyone to sign?

Number one, we all need to understand what a fact is. Number two we have to hook up people from around the world with internet forums and where we all can keep our leaders honest and ethical. My romantic notion is we can have rule by reason but we can not depend on our leaders unless we can know what they are doing and pay attention!

As I understand it, the Enlightenment was all about rationalism order and secularism - Romanticism was specifically a reaction against these strictures, a project wanting to restore emotion, spontaneity, subjectivity and enchanted thinking. — Tom Storm

It is all rather complex and I regret my limited time to respond to people.

Romanticism (also known as the Romantic era) was an artistic, literary, musical, and intellectual movement that originated in Europe towards the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism, idealization of nature, suspicion of science and industrialization, and glorification of the past with a strong preference for the medieval rather than the classical.[1] It was partly a reaction to the Industrial Revolution,[2] the social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature—all components of modernity.[3] It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography,[4] education,[5] chess, social sciences, and the natural sciences.[6] It had a significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers influencing conservatism, liberalism, radicalism, and nationalism.[7]

The movement emphasized intense emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as fear, horror and terror, and awe — especially that experienced in confronting the new aesthetic categories of the sublime and beauty of nature.[8][9] It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, but also spontaneity as a desirable characteristic (as in the musical impromptu). In contrast to the Rationalism and Classicism of the Enlightenment, Romanticism revived medievalism[10] and elements of art and narrative perceived as authentically medieval in an attempt to escape population growth, early urban sprawl, and industrialism. — wikipedia

However, the futurist dream of the enlightenment was to raise the human potential and resolve all our problems with reason. Democracy being rule by reason and made possible with universal education. The pursuit of happiness meant gaining knowledge. This is a huge contrast from believing we were kicked out of Eden and cursed and doomed to be miserable creatures unless saved by a supernational power and therefore we must we live under the authority a God who gives us to rule over us. This God deciding who will be masters and who will be servants. Our liberty from that is pretty romantic, isn't it? I suspect we don't understand things this way because of the Christian influence and enlightenment and Christianity oppose each other.

We shouldn't think that thinking scientifically means thinking logically. Common sense works too. No we do not think scientifically at all times. I made that clear in my thread about praying and wishing. But, in our day to day affairs, we've learned to treat scientific facts as common sense facts. The calm before the storm makes us stay inside the house and wait for the rain. We don't eat food that had gone sour or moldy. And of course, looking before we cross the street saves us from getting hit by vehicles. — L'éléphant

Yes, we should think scientific thinking is logical and the examples you gave and not.
We agree those are not examples of scientific thinking, right? They are knee-jerk reactions done without much thinking and voting with the same lack of thinking or deciding not to wear a mask or get a vaccination without thinking things threw is problematic. Romantic thinking is not really thinking either.

Here is a short and simple video about the good and bad of that kind of thinking.

You romanticize the reason for war. War is over gold. Look deep enough, and its over something. — Hanover

What else?

Science is part of the state of affairs. — L'éléphant

Yes, but how many of us think scientifically? Scientific thinking is empirical and religious thinking is not empirical. Understanding human values is not empirical thinking and our opinions are not empirical thinking. Even those who do think empirically do so only once in a while because it is very energy-consuming and we are running on automatic most of the time and rarely really think about anything. This is a problem for democracy and education can resolve but it is not. In fact, some states have laws preventing thinking.

What do you think of society's way of relating with others? You talk about a sort of pseudo-homesteading that you did in Oregon. If we are not talking about a cultish-commune type society, I'm assuming you had to meet a partner (assuming in your case a husband), go through a sort of dating/courting/falling in love process, decide to create new people in the world and raise them a certain way, be able to provide for yourself and family with some sort of job in the broader economic system which allows for things to survive.. EVEN in just these very "typical" circumstances, people can have a hard time in almost every one of those processes.... everything from sustaining a good job, finding a partner, and living some ideal life of perfect harmony where one has a clockwork routine of baking pies and making furniture, while the kids are helping churn the butter, and helping cultivate the garden.. Ya know it's just like the Hobbits or something, right? It all works out, and everyone's needs are met in perfect harmony :roll:. That image indeed is its own romanticism.. It is the pull for Tolkien's world, for fantasy idealism. — schopenhauer1

I have 1950 values. Ideally, until the children are old enough, women do not work outside of the home but make an important economic contribution to the family with their domestic skills. I am not sure that is just romanticism. In fact, it is very much about duty, not just to the family, but to the whole community. This is very much about defending our democracy and not becoming reliant on the state.

Personally, I am not so much patriotic as I identify myself with women around the world. All mothers share a lot in common and we need to stand united. I lived for my children and Demeter was my archetype until my children grew up and I shifted to an Athena archetype, identified with Athens and Roman, not exactly the US. I suppose there is a lot of romanticism in my thinking and feelings, but also a lot of philosophy and study of human nature from the point of view of many disciplines, from anthropology and zoology to geology and economics. And I am thinking about all this as I write, wondering what I think about what I think, and what thought might come up next?

I brought up the question about Romanticism because of the youtube I watched and the question of if it is behind dreams of utopia that turn into nightmares. I still am not sure what I think but I think unless a person is insane we all act on good intentions and the best way to avoid trouble is to be as aware as we can be about the world we live in and why we think what we think. :chin: Socrates was not right about all things, but for sure, the more we know, the more we know we do not know.

Well, you should know my stance on procreation by now, Athena. — schopenhauer1

Please, don't expect me to remember anything. I have not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's yet, but I am struggling to just live in the present. :lol: I hope I remember to get back to you. I have to leave for work right now. :lol: Perhaps I should do better notes so I can keep everyone straight and remember what I intend to do when I have the time.

Where did I say I don't agree with it? I'm confused by your whole post. All I said is that Enlightenment values are not Romantic values. — T Clark

How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values?

This phenomenon has been observed in the natural world-- when groups have become unsustainable, whether by toxicity, overcrowding, and unrest, they naturally break apart into smaller groups somewhere else. — L'éléphant

I am confused. What you said is true and doesn't that make our disregard for nature, the problem? But we are smart enough to develop the science that should become the right reason of which Cicero speaks.

"If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs" My faith is in science, not human stupidy and the religions that maintain it.

All of this, yes! I'd give anything to have these societies back and people behaving like them. You need to see this history, man. Epicurus is the real deal. I regard him as THE single most important, and influential philosopher in history:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm — Garrett Travers

Oh, yes you have my attention. :grin:

"The teachings of the Lyceum did not sit well with Epicurus, who quickly moved on to study the atomistic system of Democritus under Nausiphanes of Teos." That is from your link and I am enjoying it. While reading of Epicurus education I was uneasy because I knew Socrates was opposed to contemplating smaller and smaller things (atoms) and Plato who learned from Socrates went on to teach philosophy to Aristotle. So how did Epicurus get into atoms? Your link explains that and that delights me. :heart:

The turmoil of his years is interesting. It sure was not homeostatic! Today, Epicurus is nowhere near as well known as Aristotle and Plato who were advanced by the Church and scholasticism. The Bible does not give us the math and science that was available in its day. We were given a mythology of creation, and of deities and demons, that is contrary to science and what some of us believe is truth, but appears to be based on Sumerian stories of the gods, that were plagiarized by those we know as Jews today. How different history might have been if Epicurus's philosophy had become the winning philosophy! Aristotle is very important but if he had been adopted along with Epicurus and the atomic system, might history have gone very differently, and might we know a different world today, with a totally different understanding of "human nature"?

I am really stoked!. :grin: :heart:

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code and sort of traditionalize it, as it were, as opposed to the Platonic and Aristotelian models, which were more focused on forms, and logic. — Garrett Travers

Okay, you are saying he is an empiricist because he is a materialist? That is he believes the cosmos consists only of atoms and voids, and it is the mothing and quantitative qualities of atoms that gave form to everything in the cosmos, and furthermore, that true knowledge is provable by both observation and logic.

It would be fun if we could replay history and have the Church base scholasticism on Epicurus instead of Aristotle. Oh my, you have made this discussion much more exciting than I expected! I am going to take a break and contemplate the possibility. Scholasticism replied on Plato and his perfect forms supporting the Christian notion of God and perfection, and also Aristotle with his logic for knowing truth. But as we know, there was a huge backlash to Artistotle and the Church's claim to truth. Bacon gave us inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning depends on materialism versus spiritualism in that it is something that can be observed. God and his spiritual realm is not something we can observe. Do others see where materialism is important or am I off track? To be an empiricist is to be a materialist and this opposes superstition. Christianity does not oppose superstition because it depends on believing the supernatural is more real than what we experience as real and it does not follow the rules of nature but rather depends on pleasing a God who is not limited by the laws of nature/logos, right? I think the backlash against Aristotle was also a backlash against the Church and essential to the enlightenment and our liberty.

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

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
— wikipedia

Are those Romantic values? I don't think so.

There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole?
— Athena

You were very clear, but I don't think the only two choices are Romanticism and technocracy. — T Clark

Why do you not agree with the Wikipedia definition of the Enlightenment? Thomas Jefferson plagiarized John Locke when he wrote the US Declaration of Independence, except instead of the right to land as Locke mentioned, Jefferson said a right to pursue happiness. Considering how important land is to our survival I kind of regret Jefferson replacing that with the right to pursue happiness, however, we should understand that interest in pursuing happiness is an idea coming from Aristotle and Cicero.

In Aristotelian texts, the happiness was interpreted in the light of one
of crucial concepts of his philosophical system, completion (enthelechy).
It indicated the motion of every righte-ous thing to its genuine end which
was thought to be identical with the universal order led by Natural (or
Divine) Law. In social life, the completion was combined with the
happiness of communities and human beings reached through high
intellectual and moral virtues and relevant habits. The role of outstanding
legislators and statesmen was appreciated by Aris-totle as key condition
for social progress.

In Cicero’s texts, the concept of happiness was also linked with the
Natural Law: “[...] the ultimate good of man is life in accordance with
Nature”. The author proceeded from the Stoic theory, viewing in the
Universe a republic (consisting of stars, planets, animals, men) led by
Logos. Men are held as the main object of Logos emanation, and it is
present in their soul as the reasonable part. As a result, virtues; spring
from reason, the most divine element in man”. In communal life, the
connection with Logos was brought about by outstanding statesmen, who,
after death, dwelt in “a high place full of stars, shining and
splendid”. They turn into the heavenly patrons of Rome personifying its
basic virtues – virtus, gravitas, dignitas, fides, clementia. Felicitas
(happiness) was assessed as a balance of them. According to Cicero, the
best state form capable to secure the happiness of citizen was the republic
with mixed government system uniting the elements of monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy — Albert Stepanyan and Lilit Minasyan

The enlightenment was based on that reasoning. Something we might better appreciate if compared to the Christian dark age of beings cursed and thrown out of Eden and in need to being saved by a supernatural power. All religions tending to be conservative and hold back human progress, leaving people with no books and no way of knowing anything but what religious leaders tell them and a few survival skills and totally dependent on authority above them. In such conditions what kind of happiness could a human hope to have? Unless they feared a god, what would make them virtuous?

Well, empiricism is the legacy of Epicurus, — Garrett Travers

How is that so?

My two cents on Romanticism as I am pondering it now...
The Enlightenment of the 17-18th centuries sought out to understand the world using what they referred to as "Reason". This idea, borrowed from the Stoics but changed slightly to mean empirical reasoning and not necessarily some "Universal Reason" (though there was some of this too with Deism). It was simply the notion brought about from the New Science being explored by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Huygens, Descartes, Boyle, et al.

However, the scientific worldview seemed to constantly focus on the empirical and even with that, Political Science was the main focus. The individual human condition was given short-shrift. The 19th century can be seen as a sort of backlash.. Existentialism started the trend of "the individual" and the existential questions of life. What does it mean to be a human consciousness, from the interior perspective, not just the empirical one. These types of human struggles are captured more in art, literature, feelings, personal observations and experiences, etc.. The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics.. Rousseau and his general "General Will", Herder, or Schelling and Fichte's emphasis on ethnic politics helped push movements that divided Europe less on Imperial or Universal lines and more on common cultural and historical ties. It was not universal in the Enlightenment sense of only worrying about the individual's rights and securities, but about cultural identity. Individualistic, but at the level of culture, not the person. That would be more emphasized with the Existentialists. — schopenhauer1

Oh my God, I love you! The difference between "empirical reasoning" as opposed to "Universal Reason" is a wonderful thing to contemplate! Oh dear, I am so excited my brain shut down. I need to do some breathing to calm down. What is the difference?

Cicero thought with reason we could come to agreements on what is so and what should be and how to get from what is to what should be. He thought with would be universal. Socrates was most concerned with expanding our consciousness which is right in line with Cicero's belief that we can progress with reason. "There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil.“ — Marcus Tullius Cicero, book De Legibus Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1931662-marcus-tullius-cicero-there-is-a-true-law-a-right-reason-conformable-t

Yeoza! "The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc." I could be wrong but I think Kierkegaard and Nietzche had serious mental problems that could have been genetic. I just don't trust a man who does not find happiness with family. Raising children is an important part of growing up. Especially if one wants to be an authority on human nature. Like without family aren't we missing an important human experience?

"The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc. It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics." How delicious! What was happening during this period of history? We were entering the industrial age and migration from rural life to city life. I was shocked when I moved from LA, California to a rural and primitive community in Oregon and shocked again when I moved back into a city with all its rules and regulations! It is such different consciousnesses and different experiences of life and who we are. Just this month a reporter gave us a woman in the contested region of Ukraine, who said she wants nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine, but just wants to be left alone. She cared nothing about politics. When I was raising my family in a rural area I wasn't politically aware, because what was on my mind was my family, the dogs, chickens, garden, and the small-town community events like the quaint fair where we showed off our produce and domestic skills and talents.

Eventually what captured my mind were the Greek gods and especially the goddesses and learning to become my own hero. :lol: I was definitely romantic and knew nothing about what oil has to do with the economy and war and military-industrial complex. I am so political now. Thank you for awakening my memory of my past. What we think we know of human nature should not be based exclusively on the limits of our own lives and a small group of associates who are just like us.

I certainly think support for our nation and government is often expressed in romantic terms, but I think democracy is a down-to-earth, practical way of governing. I don't think the founders of the US were romantics at all. You, on the other hand, seem to be. Is that something that might lead you to support risky policies in the name of national solidarity and tradition? — T Clark

I think many of the US founding fathers were romantics.

The history for this begins with the crusades and the discovery of Greek and Roman classics revealing ancient civilizations that were more advanced than rural, agrarian Europe under Christianity and kings. This was an embarrassment for the church and to maintain its authority, it claimed that knowledge as its own. Classical information was the core of scholasticism. At this time the Church relied heavily on Plato and Aristotle. The classics became the foundation of liberal education and were secularized, giving us the Age of Reason.

The "liberal arts" were originally those disciplines deemed by the Ancient Greeks to be essential preparation for effective participation in public life. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were regarded as the core liberal arts, with arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy playing a secondary, if important, role. This model inspired the early European universities (though the grammar taught was Latin, not Greek) and by the end of the Renaissance other subjects had been added to this core—Greek grammar, history, moral philosophy and poetry. Even as specialization at the undergraduate level was embraced in some countries from the 19th century onwards, some vestige of a liberal arts idea persisted: well into the second half of the 20th century competence in Latin and Greek was an admissions requirements for matriculation of all students at some elite universities (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge). — Harry Brighouse

That education led to the enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment)[note 2] was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries with global influences and effects.[2][3] The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.[4][5] — wikipedia

Johannes Gutenberg's printing press and figuring out how to make paper made books relatively cheaply, plus the demand for books, but not having a lot of authors, lead to printing the Greek and Roman classics provided the foundation of a literate society.

So I would say Romanticism compted with religion and well-educated men at the time of Thomas Jefferson were apt to be Romantics. I would say the literature and education back in the day lead to
an idealized view of reality, and in the US we maintained that until 1958 when it was replaced 100% by education for technology. The Prussians centralized education and focused Germany on education for technology for military and industrial purposes and became what we defended our democracy against. The ideal manifest by education for technology being very different from the ideal manifested by liberal education. Yet religion and the classics are core to either ideal. There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole?

Let us grapple over what you think is more down-to-earth? Oh, this is such a juice debate of what is so. :grin: Is that "something that might lead you to support risky policies in the name of national solidarity and tradition?" I don't know? I don't think so but I would appreciate probing this possibility? I think every cell in my body favors liberty, but that goes with washing the unwashed masses and dressing them in fine clothes. Oh, dear. I don't know if I am evil or good?

Romanticism - A literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, characterized chiefly by a reaction against neoclassicism and an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an exaltation of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a predilection for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms. — T Clark

I have been thinking about what I saw in a documentary about art in that period, a kind of rebelliousness against established art standards and the elites who thought they rightly controlled the judgment of what is good art and what is not.

Wikipedia explains neoclassicism like this "The main Neoclassical movement coincided with the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment, and continued into the early 19th century, laterally competing with Romanticism."

Is that a class struggle? I am quite distressed by what I perceive as foolish liberty today. A breaking of the social rules that gives us hope of overcoming racism and has meant the liberation of women, but destroys family order and may have negative social ramifications as well. I guess that makes me a conservative although many think I am liberal. I value the Greek and Roman classics and think they could benefit us and I am not so good with breaking rules.

Romantic - Marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized. — T Clark

That is what I am comfortable with. It marked past education in the US, but I do not see it as rebel or breaking rules. It is using classical literature to prepare the young for life and citizenship. It goes with preparing the young to make good wishes for our country, as one textbook explained education should do. That makes the democracy we were manifesting, a Romantic notion coming out of the Enlightenment. I don't think there are simple answers.

By the definition above, I think Nazism, communism, jingoistic patriotism, and other similar ideologies can be defined as romanticism. — T Clark

I think that is so but so was the democracy we were manifesting through education a Romantic notion.

Progress has (always) been, in my humble opinion, a function of dissatisfaction (dukkha): we're dissatisfied, we wanna do something about it, and then so-called progress. — Agent Smith

That goes with the American dream and the roaring 20s when we were very excited by mechanical breakthroughs and what technology can do for us. But our romantic dream of ourselves could be a nightmare as we face another terrible war and global warming.

Homeostasis — Garrett Travers

I think we need some homeostasis right now. It feels like things are flying out of control in many directions. Dreams are wonderful but we need to ground ourselves with reality so our dreams don't become nightmares?

Exactly where to place Limits on Liberty is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said something like "your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose". :smile: — Gnomon

Unrealistic expectations is a failure of individual rational assessment, which is a requirement of long-term homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I know that terrible things happened before Romanticism raised its self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head, but assume we refer to what took place after it did so. — Ciceronianus

The "general will" of Rousseau, and other collectivist musings, such as in Hegel and Fichte, could be read as justifying mass war and state power. — NOS4A2

Okay, I had to look up "homeostasis" and "general will". Homeostasis in the context of human behavior needs a better explanation. "General will" is explained like this

How is general will different from the will of all?
While the general will looks out for the common good, the will of all looks out for private interests and is simply the sum of these competing interests. ... When dealing with the general will, however, the overriding objective is the common good and everyone cooperates to achieve it. — Alexander Pfander

I think the United States educated "general will" until 1958 when education for good moral judgment and independent thinking was changed to leaving moral training to the church and "group think" with reliance on authority. Is it possible "how" we teach children to think makes a difference?

Right now we have so much unrealistic thinking and people not trained for democracy, demonstrate a will focused on private interests not what is best for the common good. I think technology has led to unrealistic expectations. We sure are not thinking of what global warming is doing to the rest of the world. This sure as blazes is a big problem "self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head,". Education for technology is not education for science. Do we have a mass thinking problem and could education resolve it?

The old textbooks in the US focused on the general good.

You got my attention from the beginning when you distinguished a difference between the live and let live attitude or the everyone has to live "this way" determination. Until you said it I didn't think of that. That is something I have to ponder because I know so many "nice" people who think the world would be a better place if everyone conformed to their notion of what should be. I think I might be one of those people :gasp: so I really have to ponder that difference because I value liberty but hate the ugliness that results from the liberties some people take. I hope others have more to say about this.

I absolutely love the picture you posted. I would like to enlarge it and put it on my wall.

Those thoughts were closer to what I am pondering.

I like the East Indian notion that when we speak of one thing we speak of its opposite as both are twos sides of the same coin.

Hitler's art reveals a 'decadent romantic' - CSMonitor.comhttps://www.csmonitor.com › ...
Dec 12, 1984 — As an artist, Hitler's taste and ability never rose above the level of a decadent romanticism. The 20 paintings now on view at the Palazzo ... — Harold Rogers

Alain de Botton has studied philosophy and he says the Ancient Greeks had a very different notion of love than we do today. The ancient Greek notion was that it is loving to help another be the best s/he can be by pointing out ways in which the other could improve. I can easily relate to this because it is how the family I grew up in expressed love. It would be easier for everyone to understand this point by watching the video that is the reason I made this post.

Not that it matters here, but I think the ancient Greek notion of love goes with the concept of democracy. It is the basic belief that we all can do better, and if we all do better, we create a better society. It is simply in the realm of what is possible. Unless...

If we pick up from the Bible, then obviously we are wretched creatures and there is no hope for us because we can not help what we are, greedy, ignorant, lazy, basically incapable of controlling our impulses, so we need to tell our sins to the priest who tells us to do Hail Marys and with prayers, we might have God's grace and our immortality. The good thing is acceptance! We don't have to be perfect and how we are isn't our fault. Even if our spouse is hurt by our wrongs, tough, we are married for life and eternity. Suck it up and keep our own weaknesses in mind. Do not expect too much of anyone.

But the same mythology can flow into romanticism only now we are angels and finding our soul mate means happiness forever after. True love is unconditional and those who love us know what we need and want without us having to say anything about it. In fact, we should not talk too much and ruin everything with reason.

Some of this is a little unrealistic and ideas of Utopia are unrealistic and yet we are willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill our unrealistic goals and this brings us to suicide and war because we are willing to give our lives for what we want. I don't think that is what was behind wars in the past, but I think it may be behind the wars of modernization and romanticism?

Perhaps the ease that we can be complacent is the problem when our environment doesn't challenge us. — ssu

That is an interesting notion. I know my brain started shutting down when we were in lockdown in Oregon, even though I got on the internet daily. I couldn't go to the pool or anywhere else, and I was not sure I was going to get my brain or my body back! I am serious. I was so thankful when I could return to going to the pool and driving around and it all came back. For sure being physically active is part of having an alert brain and now that you mention it, I think the stimulation of driving was helpful. :lol: We might not have to worry about tigers, but driving can be an alarming experience that gets the adrenaline going. We can not have lazy dreaming brains when we drive.

I love trying to think with a consciousness of the past. An impossible thing because we can not unknow what we know. But if it were possible, wouldn't it be fun to think as a hunter-gather not knowing anything else, not thinking we can call a doctor or turn on the evening news or pick up the phone and call someone. But knowing one mushroom has medical uses and another mushroom is good for starting fires as the iceman knew these things. Imagine our brains not being cluttered as they are today but keenly aware of our surroundings. That would be a different intelligence and I don't think we have it.

Intelligence is very much about curiosity. People who think they know it all have a serious problem learning because they are close-minded. That can make forums a terrible experience and it might also be harmful to society in general? Perhaps our increased hostility and violence comes out of being close-minded and really uninterested in what other people have to say? Like talking to a teenager who knows it all. :grimace: When there is no curiosity there is no learning.

On the other hand, good logic skills, with curiosity can greatly increase our intelligence. Then, as a hunter-gather learns from his/her environment, we can learn from each other. But only if we have learned those high-order thinking skills and we remain open-minded. Unfortunately, nature starts closing our minds when we pass age 8. Our brains literally change preventing us from absorbing knowledge as we do when we are very young, but if we learned the high-order thinking skills and remain curious we can greatly increase the knowledge in our heads. Then in our later years, our brains change again and instead of learning new facts, we begin having enlightenment experiences that are a more complex understanding of the meaning of those facts. This is a time of wisdom unless, of course, one stops thinking at age 30 and goes through life with a closed mind. Too many of those people are in forums pissing everyone off. :lol:

The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to stop education for higher-order thinking skills. Their well-meaning intent was to keep people dependent on authority, the authority of parents, and the authority of the church, and the authority of experts. That is conservative thinking and not the way to increase our intelligence. It goes with teachers taking Texas to the supreme court, to end the Texas drive to make teachers teach creationism as scientifically equal to evolution. :grimace:

I really like what you said about it being difficult to measure intelligence but I think our easy lives have so muted our ability to think that we would be in the dark ages without it our technology.

Here is a humorous example. I was leaving a nursing home with a friend who can not read at the 8th-grade level. Most people would consider him retarded. We came to a gate that required knowing a code to open the gate and I was stopped, sure I could not get out of the gate without the code. Mind you I have a college education so I am smart, right? :lol: My retard friend didn't think twice before putting his hand through the bars in the fence and opening the gate from the outside handle. I have known a couple of people I would rather be within a survival situation than college-educated people, because they are free from our programming and are more like animals that have a keen awareness of what is around them and how to achieve what needs to be achieved.

Asia surpassing the west is interesting. Computers were developed in the US with government funding the research but it was Japan that latched on to the potential of this technology and quickly surpassed the US economic growth building on the technology. Japan has a labor shortage and that increases interest in robotics, but once the robots are in place, a decline in thinking is to be expected. I have heard if the bridge had not already been invented modern man would not be able to do so, for the reasoning expressed in the OP. There is a lot we could not do without being able to rely on the "experts".

I worry about a major event that means no one is left to maintain nuclear plants. Humans doing their best to survive may not realize the danger of not maintaining a nuclear plant and even if they were aware that maintenance is essential, which one would know enough to know how to maintain the nuclear plant.? How smart are we without our technology and computers?

Our computer knowledge has no value unless we actually think and make an effort to be well informed. I just left a history forum where people love bashing each other and completely ignore posts that are informative. How in heavens name these ignorant people maintain a high opinion of themselves I will never know because they sure could not score high if they were tested on what they know.

Really having people on the supreme court is so outdated. Shouldn't the decisions be made by a computer to avoid bias?

I give respect where it's due. — karl stone

I do not engage with disrespectful people.

Out of curiosity, I read a little more of what you said, and it makes for a much better discussion than your shortcuts. However, the issue of respect is unsolved. Dealing with disrespectful people is like feeding the trolls or mice. I do not see a benefit to encouraging disrespect.

Also, there's plenty of oil, gas and coal in the ground; hundreds if not thousands of years worth. Only we cannot use it because of global warming. — karl stone

Quick tell the oil companies what you know about that and get very rich. They will love you if you can prove yourself right.

What you said is true. It is also true that in nature we can see patterns and cycles.
I was thinking of the big bang and the holy books that say in the beginning there was chaos. I don't imagine there is a human-like god who decided how to put everything together, but rather, things are as they are because this is how things interact. Among animals, there are those that are the prey those that are predators and they keep each other in balance. If anyone is out of balance two things can happen. Nature will restore the balance or the environment will be destroyed. With good intentions, we destroyed the predators and the deer destroyed the environment because they were eating the grass and shrubs faster than they could be replaced. Philosophically this is a matter of how we reason.

Just for fun, I am throwing this back to you. What might I mean by "this is a matter of how we reason"? We are pretty good at achieving our goals and why might this lead to a problem?

How did you notice when you've not engaged with anything I've written? — karl stone

You keep using insulting labels like "green commie". There are respectful people and disrespectful people. I have a preference for respectful people.

...but keep insisting on de-population - while still pumping oil.

I am strongly opposed to our dependency on oil. It has been the cause of the wars we have been in since the end of WWII. Also, our dependency on foriegn oil lead to OPEC embargoing oil to the US and a very serious recession that ruined many lives. And I read that we may have less then 40 years before we do not have enough oil to maintain this oil-based economy that all industrial nations depend on. That means All industrial economies will crash and that will be worse than the Great Depression.

If you do not understand that it's morally wrong to blame the climate and ecological crisis on the very existence of people, while restricting viable alternate clean energy technologies to maintain a catastrophically polluting, albeit obscenely profitable fossil fuels industry, then I'll not take lessons from you on being pleasant.

You have imagined a problem with my reasoning that is not so. I am not opposed to clean energy and I am not in favor of dependency on fossil fuels.

Your arguments lack an understanding of economics. When there are so many people there is not enough land for them to own property, there will be intense poverty, such as in India. Huge populations with uncontrolled growth destroy the environment if they are deer, pig, or human. Birds do not breed until they have nest. The population of predator animals increases when there is a lot of prey and decreases when the population of prey decreases. Nature stays in balance and then come humans and they throw everything out of balance.

What we have done to this planet is morally wrong.

Things are getting too unpleasant.

In the century-and-a-half since Edwin L. Drake drilled the first oil well, the history of the oil industry has been a story of vast swings between periods of overproduction, when low prices and profits led oil producers to devise ways to restrict output and raise prices, and periods when oil supplies appeared to be on the brink of exhaustion, stimulating a global search for new supplies. This cycle may now be approaching an end. It appears that world oil supplies may truly be reaching their natural limits. With proven world oil reserves anticipated to last less than forty years, the age of oil that began near Titusville may be coming to an end. In the years to come, the search for new sources of oil will be transformed into a quest for entirely new sources of energy.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=96#:~:text=During%20the%20early%20twentieth%20century,to%20run%20out%20of%20oil.&text=Up%20until%20the%201910s%2C%20the,of%20the%20world's%20oil%20supply. — Digital History

Right now the world is on the brink of war. Russia controls Much of Europe's supply of oil. Oil is essential to war, so if Russia stops sending Ukraine and other counties oil, they can not defend themselves. The US will have to supply their oil and if you think gasoline cost a lot now, just wait until we have to send our oil to Europe for another war. Wars consume huge amounts of oil very quickly. Given the finite supply of oil we may not be arguing if we need another source of energy, however, that Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, at least not if we don't have an energy grid for electric cars, and I don't think electric tanks are going to win wars.

Another small fact, oil is sold in dollars and countries around the world hold dollars to pay for that oil and have tied their economies to the value of the dollar. That is a huge economic advantage for us. The value of the dollar is backed by oil. what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar when our supply is exhausted.

Geothermal energy does seem to have tremendous potential. There are about 100K people employed in the industry now according to Wiki. It's estimated that it would be viable as a primary source if customers were willing to pay a little more for energy. But in these times of massive inflation that's problematic. — jgill

I love pictures for helping me understand. Geothermal technology is very hopeful but not the answer for everyone.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&q=What+state+uses+geothermal+energy+the+most?&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM%252CQKYz7W3Gqyu0pM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTDCEwDDAluDSvbfca3UYIZrsKEiQ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwieuvHVs931AhUQohQKHVN3CJcQ9QF6BAgGEAE&biw=854&bih=540&dpr=1.5#imgrc=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM

It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone. — karl stone

Perfect! Yes, it is a shortcut and that is what is wrong with it. What will happen to your thinking if you do not use that shortcut? What will happen to your explanation and the reader's ability to understand what you think is wrong? :wink: There is great hope for you.

I intentionally did not confront what you said but kind of slipped to the side to avoid confrontation. The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct.

We are consuming forests faster than they can reproduce and in many forest areas the soil is very poor so once the forest is gone, it is gone. I live in timber territory where timber is a large part of the economy. Besides reforestation, we have Christmas tree farms and they are no longer healthy. If these nurtured trees can not thrive, for sure all those saplings we are planting are not going to survive! I am afraid timber is no longer a renewable product. There is not enough rain for them to survive. Fire goes with this problem. Our forests are suffering from drought and fire is destroying them, while the same drought condition means saplings will not survive. Now consider all the wildlife that depends on the forest. We need to stop cutting down our forest yesterday, or at least do this cutting with more care.

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do.

Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation.

That's what the left wing, anti-capitalist green commie movement have been saying for the past 50 years, and I'm saying that it's not true. Overpopulation is not a problem, and nor is limits to resources. It's an anti-capitalist green commie misrepresentation of the reality; that with limitless clean energy from magma, we can have far greater prosperity, for many more people, and do so sustainably. — karl stone

Different points of view are a good thing. I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem and you will not be convinced that the apes and other species seriously need their habitats or they become extinct.

Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing.

You've perhaps heard the story of Pandora's box - that contained all the evils of the world. When opened, they were released, but in the bottom of the box there remained hope. I'm having trouble finding it. The fact there's a limitless source of clean energy - that could be developed and built quite rapidly, and could provide the energy necessary to secure a prosperous sustainable future for all humankind, doesn't seem hopeful to anyone other than me. I'm trying to understand why; and think that perhaps, beset by all the evils of the world - it's impossible for people to believe there's hope! — karl stone

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply.
This has a lot to do with why some areas of the world are more developed than others, and why wars are fought. There are books on technology and how it is changing our lives and China has the best supply of rare earth material, and our car industry is stuck because it can not get enough computer chips that depend on having a supply of rare earth material, and that means a technological setback.

The hope must be based on information and education for living with our reality. The planet can not afford dreams of no limits. And as for who must die so that others can live- who wants to live through what future generations are going to live through? Some may survive and be able to maintain civilization but I don't think this will happen if we do not work with the facts. And we must come together for these few people to have a chance. We will die but if we do things right, they have a chance of living.

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy! — karl stone

My dear, I am the poor. It is a real good idea to avoid assuming. As one of the poor, it is obvious to me what the effect of too many humans means. To begin with, nothing is affordable. All assistance programs are overwhelmed and there is no way charity can be enough to meet the needs. Our labor is really cheap because there are more of us than there are jobs. Life at this level can be pretty ugly because we live with desperate people and desperate people do desperate things. Also, the status system is different because coping with abuse and being abusive becomes a way to have status. I am lucky because I have housing, but the people around me do not and they become like feral cats. And let me tell you, I am so glad I live in a country, state, and community that is making a real effort to help homeless people survive. I can just imagine what it is like to live in a poor country and be powerless to feed my children and watching them die, I was too close to that.

There was a time when I had to donate plasma for the money to care for my family and I was under the required 110 pounds, so I wore extra heavy clothing. This means I was risking going into shock. That was a rough period and I forgot how to think middle class and developed black humor where death is funny. Is there anything you would like to know about the poor? Can I make it perfectly clear it was from this position that I realized the problem of overpopulation?.

Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1

I think being sustainable does mean less of all those things and a totally different lifestyle from what we are accustomed to. I think our values must change. If we loved our families more than we love our things, that might manifest sustainable happiness?