People who are vaccinated still contract and transmit the virus, and to think things would go back to normal if everyone were vaccinated is an illusion. This is all about control.
— Tzeentch

Vaccinated people develop infections, but they don't usually get critically ill. — frank

The mutant virus, that is not well controlled by the vaccination for the original virus, is causing havoc. I get the impression people are thinking we are dealing with one virus, not mutations of that virus. A big concern is if we do not stop the spread of the virus it will continue to mutate and then the vaccine may become completely ineffective.

Rampant industrialization and oppression plagued anticapitalist economies as well as capitalist economies during the 20th century. Exploitation, injustice, and mass destruction have plagued human civilization from the beginning. The roots of the problem go deeper than easy generalizations about capitalist ideology and capitalist modes of organization, though of course the negative effects of inadequate regulation and unjust policy are increasingly obvious worldwide in our times, just as capitalism in various forms has finally covered the globe.

In the last couple decades it's become harder even for relatively privileged people in relatively privileged regions to deny, to rationalize, or to ignore the acceleration of ecological instability and socioeconomic injustice. But it seems clear that the people of Earth have been paying the price of irrational and inhumane policy for a long time. — Cabbage Farmer

I started this morning with the thread about Afghanistan and the Taliban and marveling over the success of the United States and the very high level of security I have despite having disabilities and living below the poverty level. When I was raising children my life was not this easy, but never was it as bad as what mothers are experiencing in Africa and Afghanistan. Why do you all think life is better in the US than in many places where people fear for their lives and do you think we will become as those other countries?
Seriously the people who believe our government is out to get us, seriously scare me. They are like the Taliban and I fear at any time they will become violent.

And now you are taking your liberties and human rights for granted, and in fact squandering them for the promise of safety. That is most certainly a mistake; a Trojan horse. — Tzeentch

Sorry. when it comes to covid I will rely on science. When the government decides we all have to wear blue uniforms I will worry about the political play. Right now I think people who believe Covid vaccinations are about politics, are as wrong as people who feared witches in the Dark Ages before science. That fear is socially spread hysteria and if you want to argue otherwise, that could be interesting. :lol: Too much Fox news and not enough reasoning.

As for why the imperialism of other countries than the US isn't centre stage in a thread on American imperialism hmm this is a big mystery no one will ever solve it how strange :chin: — StreetlightX

Huh? Germany was the world Military-Industrial Complex power, and it lost that twice in world wars, but the US adopted everything necessary to manifest that Military-Industrial Complex. You know what Hitler called the New World Order and the Bush family thrilled to control as they engaged militarily with the mid-east.

The US might have been more successful if only it accepted Islam when in Islam's territory. Unfortunately, it could not break away from Christianity and the delusion of secular government without religion.

Given all these data points (additional are welcome), can we say unequivocally that the United States is an imperialist country? — Wheatley

Yes. All industrial economies depend on oil, and it has been the purpose of the US Military-Industrial Complex to keep control of oil. When OPEC embargoed oil to the US the US experienced an economic collapse. Carter's reaction to this reality was to tell us we must conserve and bring our use of oil in line with our supply of oil. Reagan had a different solution. Reagan slashed our domestic budget and poured all our resources into military spending including granting arms to mid-east countries such as Iran, enabling Sadam's rise to power. The US stationed its navy off the coast of oil-rich mid-east countries and soon the embargo was ended.

This need to control oil involves Israel and that is what brought on the embargo in the first place. Arabs were loosely united against Israel's land grab and the US defended Israel because of its strategic importance. Later, Sadam dared to continue the opposition to Israel's land grab, and the US removed him from power. Leading to 911 and the US occupying Afghanistan. A long-standing neocon desire to have military control of the mid-east. I know this is overly simplified but the bottom line is the US economy depends on oil and on the world trading oil in dollars, which is tied to our banking and the value of the dollar, which means a need to control oil.

Why bother to challenge god? We do not directly experience god, so science can not define god. It is what is written about God that demands our scrutiny. I believe there are physical laws that are true for the whole universe and beyond. But no holy book gives us a good explanation of them. Holy books give us mythology and these mythologies are questionable.

For example an observer is not external to reality. We are intrinsic to it. We are one facet of reality that happens to register itself. So when the question is rehashed as “does reality require reality” the question becomes a bit pointless. — Benj96

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

Because it's better to suffer that anxiety for more of your life than less of your life? :chin: — praxis

Yes. Youth is a time for exploring and risk-taking. It would be a shame to only ponder life instead of blindly leap out there and gain experiences that we can fondly remember or contemplate.

Iraq WMD →→Iraq War

Is there a pattern here or is it just me? — TheMadFool

I am the person who argues that US is the military-industrial complex we defended our democracy against. If anyone wants to discuss war, start a thread for that and pm me.

— Tzeentch

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. But you cannot, because likely there are none, and I won't accept your claim to my body on the basis of empty accusations. — Tzeentch

I assume you mean you can isolate yourself and that may be a fine choice for people who can do that, but it is not a choice medical personnel, firemen, teachers, and store clerks can make. And the cost of isolation is high. Until the infection rate is low enough for life to return to normal, unvaccinated people are the cause of much human suffering, and here is how.

Before the vaccination, many businesses had to close and people were isolated. The nutrition sites are giving meals to take home, but we can not go inside and visit as we do in normal times. Those living in congregate housing such as independent living apartments, assisted living, and nursing homes were isolated in their rooms, no activities, no socializing during meals, no visitors, and this was harder on the elderly than children. They lost strength and their minds faded away. Then when they were all vaccinated they regained freedom, but life has not gone back to normal because when we let our guard down the infection rate went sky high.

When everyone could be vaccinated and the infection rate was very low, we got to return to almost normal. But thanks to all the people who refuse to get vaccinated and follow the rules, the infection rate went sky high. I can not see my clients, we can not go places and we can not socialize at the nutrition sites. Our hospital was so overwhelmed and we called in the National Gaurd and people could not get medical care. Our beloved supervisor who was vaccinated still got infected and the virus attacked her heart. She fears she will die within a year.

Hopefully, all this is only temporary but the virus can become so embedded in our population, then we will have to live like this from now on. People who refuse to get vaccinated are holding us all hostage. We could have returned to normal months ago, but no, people think their liberty comes first and all of us are paying a price for that.

How do you take responsibility for the skyrocketing infection rate that has returned us to the worst of times? If you got covid and had to be hospitalized, the medical bill could keep you in debt for the rest of your life, and are you willing to be responsible for other people's medical bills if you did pass the virus on to them? If your hospital is overwhelmed with covid, how can you be responsible for all those who can not get medical care?

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry-pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Driving is a serious responsibility, especially when I have passengers. I make every effort to do so responsibly and that is equal to getting vaccinated. Even with the vaccination I can become infected and infect others. I think that is why we went from letting people decide if they want a vaccination or not, to mandatory vaccinations because it is not a 100% sure thing. The virus mutates and we are fighting to stay on top of that. My car has good steering and good brakes, and I am vaccinated. Life is not without risk, but we can reduce the risk and this is not cherry-picking. Not being vaccinated is like driving a car with bad brakes. When I was young I tried that and decided it was not a good idea. :lol:

War is a pointless, tragic thing. Honor is the carrot "society" has used for centuries to lure its young men into an untimely death for the benefit of the few. The individual shouldn't accept to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective; not in war, not in a pandemic. — Tzeentch

I think that depends on the war. China now has hypersonic nuclear weapons and we do not have a good defense against them. Perhaps the subject of war deserves its own thread? Unless our democracy is defended in the classroom, it is not defended and the next big election will be interesting. We may be our own worst enemy? We took our democracy for granted and this was a mistake. We took our military superiority for granted and this may have been a mistake?

We can of course hope the pandemic so weakens the world, no one goes to war. Resolving the global overpopulation with a pandemic could be a good thing? :grin:

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world. — T Clark

Wow, I love your comment! Absolutely love it! :heart: It is awesome how one word "awareness" can explain so much. People with no self-awareness drive me nuts, and that seems common in the US.

Now my thoughts are becoming a different thread so I better stop here. I will ponder what you have said.

Yes, I can acknowledge genuine concerns about vaccine safety in light of the thrombosis issue. But I’d trust the boards and management and scientists at these pharma companies a long while before I trusted conspiracy-mongering internet posters or their lunatic fringe antivaxer cheer squad. — Wayfarer

I believe there is an individual risk of a harmful reaction to the covid vaccination, as in war the individual or group of individuals can be killed. But as our soldiers risk their lives for the rest of us, we must take that individual risk for the good of all. The consequence of not taking that risk is keeping everyone in danger and that can make covid endemic rather a temporary threat.

A pandemic means a disease the spreads from one place to the next and the correct response can limit the spread of the disease and make it a temporary problem.

Endemic means the disease is embedded in the population and does not go away, such as areas where malaria is endemic, or the common cold.

Our refusal to take the risk to protect others means we can be the carrier who infects others, leading to their suffering, their possible long-term poor health, and possibly their death. And we could carry the responsibility of the disease mutating and being more deadly and/or so embedded that future generations will still have the problem. I think we need to ask, is my one life, more important than all the others? Does a valuable member of society put everyone else at risk? What is the honor of behaving as a soldier who flees to save his own life?

I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy. — T Clark

There most certainly is a difference between the east and west. I value both but have favored the west.

I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.

We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? And thank you for your post that causes to me think about this. I think in my later years it is appropriate for me to make a more determined effort to follow the path of yoga and deal with the fear that I don't know shit! I don't mean to be disrespectful, but in writing this, that is what came up for me.

To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur philosopher/engineer.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher — Artemis

I want to address the standards for being a casual non-professional philosopher. I keep referring to Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Fast thinking barely qualifies as thinking. It is a reaction, and most of our thinking is a reaction without much thought. Philosophy demands slow thinking, the accumulation of information, and pondering it with the skills of higher-order thinking.

Using Bloom’s Taxonomy of thinking skills, the goal is to move students from lower- to higher-order thinking:

from knowledge (information gathering) to comprehension (confirming)
from application (making use of knowledge) to analysis (taking information apart)
from evaluation (judging the outcome) to synthesis (putting information together) and creative generation
This provides students with the skills and motivation to become innovative producers of goods, services, and ideas. This does not have to be a linear process but can move back and forth and skip steps. — Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Core Education is not always about students learning higher-order thinking skills but is too often limited to preparing students to pass a test and relies mostly on memorization. The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher-order thinking skills. Some Christain organizations also opposed education for high-order thinking skills. This is important to understand because...

Philosophy is not a picking and choosing what body of thought one would like to call one's own or would like to believe in; a choice based upon personal preferences or feelings. Philosophy is a pursuit....

Philosophy as a critical and comprehensive process of thought involves resolving confusion, unmasking assumptions, revealing presuppositions, distinguishing importance, — Philip A. Pecorino

It seems obvious to me, that philosophy is best when we do it together.

I want to make it clear that I wasn't criticizing people who find their way in philosophy through the writings of the great philosophers. Actually, I'm hoping that someone will make a good case that I should be reading those books. I wonder what I'm missing, but my understanding of the world doesn't feel like anything is missing. — T Clark

Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy.

I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are.

However, I think the main goal of socialism is total state control over society, economy, and politics. And that isn't very democratic. — Apollodorus

We have too many agreements. :lol: But your parting statement hit a nerve. Not because I disagree but because I think the is true for the US and the Military-Industrial Complex that has zero family values. Our young have been raised to be products and consumers for Industry. I would not be speaking of family values if we all took them for granted.

Historically US history has put Industry first. I think in the past, our education put being human first and educated for well-rounded individual growth, but our laws and police force protected property owners more than human rights, more than civil rights. Union workers risked getting their heads bashed in, or in some cases being gunned down, in their fight for better wages and better working conditions. Right now property owners who rent can make decisions about who lives in a rental and these laws are opposed to family helping family. If an elder woman is in section 8 housing and helps a son or daughter who does drugs she can be evicted and that becomes a serious barrier to getting into housing. So the woman who does the right thing of helping family becomes homeless. Of course, all the racist laws including when some states outlawed interracial marriages, are opposed to human rights. I suppose we could add laws against homosexuals to the list. That is certainly true when it comes to family, however, the reality is, gay families tend to do better than heterosexual families.

We could ask what is a family and what are family values and rights and duties. Then we might have better grounds for how Government could support family values?

Since individuals depend on the population of which they are a part, policies that are harmful to the wider population are ultimately harmful to the individuals within that population.
Therefore policies that are harmful to the wider population are unacceptable. — Apollodorus

Socrates said something like that and he wanted us to be aware of each other. In the US textbooks prepare the young for life, not to be products for industry as it started doing in 1958. I think it is obvious that was not a good change in education. We have improved by eliminating the old prejudices but without shared values and principles we are in big trouble.

The breakdown of family comes with education for a technological society with unknown values and that worries me. I can see the benefits of weak families but I think the problems are much worse.

Thank you for acknowledging forcing women into the workforce takes away their right to be mothers, and caring daughters and granddaughters. :lol: If everyone were aware of what it is like to give birth to a child and get up several times during the night to feed the child, there might be greater acceptance of giving her time to be a mother. And I hear there is a reluctance to give family time off the care for older members or sick members of the family. Seriously? What are our values? Humans succeeded because of their willingness to care for each other and shouldn't a civilized society encourage that? It is not just an inconvenience to find someone to care for a family member, but it is anti-family to be put in the position of finding someone else to do caregiving.

We had family fidelity when women stayed home to care for their families and that is being destroyed as now they must have fidelity with their employer, and sorry family, you all must fend for yourselves. It is not gays destroying family values. I think, what you have suggested is socialism can strengthen the family instead of weakening it. Have I interpreted you correctly? I was not thinking of socialism in that way but I really like that idea.

That's hardly going to happen if people think that North Korea is "democratic", though, is it? If that's what the educated think, what can we expect from the uneducated? — Apollodorus

Are you suggesting democracy is about being full human beings? Not just voting? I wish we all understood democracy as a way of life and an experience of being empowered to fully actualize ourselves. Government is one aspect of democracy. Individualism and family are other aspects of the democratic way of life, and if we replaced the autocratic model of industry with the democratic model, we could better manifest the democratic way of life.

I think this encapsulates the socialist or socialistic problem. An ideology that aims to "socialize" a population out of existence or otherwise promotes policies with that result seems highly suspect to me. — Apollodorus

I interpret that to mean you are opposed to socialism. I can see socialism going either way, supporting families or destroying them. What is the goal of socialism? Is it possible it can be harmful or beneficial depending on the determined goal?

A (maybe the) question to ask about troublesome feelings is, "What is this feeling doing for me right now?" The idea being - you're thoughtful answer here likely to be better than mine - that feelings are for a reason, and serve a purpose. With respect to what the future holds, those feelings understood aright may yield to feelings of acceptance and freedom, and to seeking appropriate personal action under that acceptance and freedom, whatever that might be.

As to organized religion, it seems hackneyed to call it a drug. But I on occasion see it and hear it in action. And a drug it seems, in the worst sense. The most charitable sense of it being as a medicine. And to be sure, some people need medicine - maybe all, at one time or another.

Dig into that, the necessity of some belief, and one finds reason-based faith. Oops. Hello there, Mr. Kant! — tim wood

I have not read Kant in a while and it is time for me to refresh what I know of his ideas.

Last night I listened to an interview with the Christian woman who wrote "Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World" by Katharine Hayhoe. It was a wonderful explanation of the importance of being hopeful and seeing answers instead of just problems.

Kind of like the woman who came up with the Virtues Program for families. She stressed it is not good enough to tell children what they are doing wrong, we almost must teach them how to do it right.

Doom and gloom will not get us to a good place.

The cultural and political aspect is the conservative/capitalist mindset that wants to paint socialists with a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist brush. It's no different than a liberal /socialist wanting to paint the conservative/capitalist as a fascist Nazi Hitler Musoliniest. It denotes a lack of education in intro to Political Science. — James Riley

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct. This is most immediately obviousin Germany, where the explicitly avowed aim of higher education is to turn the student into an instrument for advancing scientific discovery." 1912 William James' "Talks to Teachers on Psychology, and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals".

In 1958 the US replaced its domestic education modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth, with the German model of education. Now the conservatives and liberals are pitted against each other and none of them have a clue what this has to do with the change in education. They will fight for what they believe in, but will they fight for our democracy? How do they understand their democracy?

Democracy begins with a family of gods, and we are destroying childhood and family in favor of all adults working for the state and preparing our children to be products for industry. That is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. How about returning to education for democracy and well-rounded individuals? I think that needs to come before education for political science.

Yeah, apparently I am full of surprises, or so I am told! :grin:

I can't say I agree with everything you say, but I think you are making some valid points. Not everything in life is about things like advanced technology or “equality”.

Imperial Russia was backward in some ways, but it was a prosperous nation with a lot of potential. — Apollodorus

We must avoid perfect agreement at all costs. What would we talk about if we agreed? And if we didn't argue with each other, our minds would not expand. That would be a terrible thing!

I am quite sure Russia's biggest problem is long cold winters. We feel freer in regions where the climate is mild and food grows naturally. I have heard on some tropical islands the problem is not growing plants and trees that fruit, but preventing the vegetation from taking over. Try growing those plants and trees in Siberia. I have heard Siberia is not a good place to go skinny dipping.

In contrast, though Socialism had some good points, we can imagine how disastrous its impact must have been on the Russian people to experience such extraordinary rates of corruption, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, low fertility, and rapidly declining population. We must also take into consideration that Russia has been kept alive by its large oil and gas reserves without which God only knows where it would be now.

Genghis Khan is a good representative of a harsh climate. The Mongols saw our cities as very immoral because of the lack of cooperation and the competition that leaves some no choice but to lie and steal. Both were punished by death under Genghis Khan, but because life was so hard in the harsh environment, no one was denied food and shelter, because that could be a death sentence. I say this because we have been harsh on communism and perhaps we should consider what is behind it?

The way I see it, when a nation loses interest in having families and children, and is unperturbed by a falling population, i.e., its own slow but sure demise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with that nation.

That sure was true of Sparta! The first military socialist state.

In other words, the supporters of Socialism are too eager to stress what they see as positive outcomes of that system, and in the process, they ignore the negatives. In some ways it is like a religious belief system that blindly follows its own unverified claims.

That is why I bring the issue up. Athens imitated Sparta for military reasons when Prussia began invading but it never took care of its people as Sparta did. Athens' individualism went with its liberty. I ash is that important? Is that something we should consider, and exactly what does that look like? Dying our hair green and putting studs in our face? Or the stimulus of figuring out for ourselves how we will survive?

Obviously, capitalist society is beginning to experience some of the problems seen by former socialist states. So, presumably, there are some shared causes somewhere. In any case, the future of the Western world doesn’t look very good at the moment and I don't think Socialism is in a position to offer any real solutions.

Yes, that is something we should think about. Remember? the Greek notion that we are like cattle, and only a few are chosen by the gods to be heroes. Always the hero's journey begins by pushing the person to his absolute limits. In the US education was very much about teaching the young to be heroes. This was done with literature. How desperately we need this now, but not as children's TV is doing it with superheroes or children who play the roles of adults with no adults caring for the children. I think the intentions of those shows are good, but anti-family and anti childhood, and possibly not a good influence? We are forcing our children to be as miniature adults and I think this has a negative effect, and socialism taking care of all of us is not going to have only good results.

[qoute]At 1.7 children per woman, Socialist China has a fertility rate well below replacement level. In contrast, Africa has the world's highest fertility rate with an average of 4.27 children per woman. This could be an indication that technological, economic, and social progress comes with gradual extinction. In which case, "progress" isn't necessarily what it seems ....[/quote] China, India, and Africa, absolutely must reduce their populations and if they do not do this intentionally, nature will continue to eliminate them, with disease, famine, and war. The whole world is in trouble right now because of overpopulation but that is a different subject.

It is as Zeus feared, with the technology of fire, man has gone on to discover all other technologies and now we are technologically smart, but we have turned our backs on the gods and are unwise. We have a huge challenge before us. We have succeeded! :party: Now how do we live with our success? If we can not fly around the world, and have huge high-tech homes, and whatever else is supposed to make us happy, what is left? Family. Family can be a great source of happiness and maybe we want to develop that? That is sustainable but our glut based on consuming resources is not.

I agree with you that the writers of religious texts are 'storytellers' primarily. It is about mythic aspects of existence, but with some philosophy mixed in. It may be that philosophy can enable this distinction because some people, those who cling to concrete and literal interpretations often don't do this. If the Bible, for example, is read like a newspaper or textbook, this involves a rather rigid kind of perspective and misses the symbolic dimensions.

As you say there has been a lot of fighting for what is believed to be right. One aspect which I am thinking about is not only has there been literal fighting, as in the Christian crusades, but, also, division amongst Christians. There was great controversy in England when the Bishop of Durham said that he did not think that the resurrection happened in a physical sense. — Jack Cummins

I hope someday you get the perfect job for your thinking mind. Perhaps you can become a professor of philosophy. I think your statement, that it is not just what the holy books say that matters, but also how we approach them that is also important, is a very wise concept. Of course! Anything can become a subject of philosophy because it is a matter of how we approach our studies.

I like the saying, "when we think we know God, we know not God". The Bible says as much. The Bible speaks of the unknown God so that our minds remain open. The God that is beyond our comprehension. Had we stayed with that there might have been less trouble, but I think Islam is clear on that, and yet it too divided and the people fight each other. That truth saddens my heart. So much sincere effort to give us something to believe that would help us be our better selves and we destroy that with our arguing and literally killing each other.

This is so sad, but I think those who deify Jesus have made a terrible mistake. They have made the unknown God a very human and known God, destroying our sense of awe and our open mind and open heart. We need to be less sure of what we think we know, and that is philosophy. The cure is teaching good thinking skills. I think you could do that well with the education to become a professor.

but thanks largely to Nietzsche and an abundance of Christian and Islamic apologists, the idea that a void is opened when religion has gone has become a prevailing myth. — Tom Storm

Exactly! When everyone agrees on God's truth, I may agree with them.

but there is no guarantee against ontological dread and chronic feelings of emptiness — Tom Storm

Yeap, that comes with being human. It also comes with being a political animal and disagreeing about the best way to have a good economy and resolve our social and economic problems.
I wish we had a project like building a pyramid or a Chaco reflection of the heavens to ease our uneasiness. Our excitement over the New Age and then over what technology will do for us, is waning and we need something besides dread of the future.

philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Our division of philosophy and religion may be a false one considering they begin with debates. I know people want to believe their particular religion is God's truth revealed, but that is not want history tells us. Let us begin with Judaism

Within Judaism there are a variety of religious movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism,[14][15] which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah.[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism — wikipedia

A variety of religious movements. These people were, and still are, storytellers. It is a cultural thing to handle conflict or correcting someone's behavior with a story rather than a straight-on attack. They always worked together on problems such as the destruction of their temple and being taken into slavery in Babylon. The way they worked a system for not being assimilated into other cultures and keeping their own culture intact is amazing. Their story of creation appears to be a Sumerian story adjusted to be a story of one god instead of many gods and I don't think they take that story literally as Christians do.

Now the Christians, yi yi yi! What a bunch of argumentative people! When Constantine legalized Christianity he was horrified by all the fighting this set off and called the Christians together to come up with agreements and stop the fighting. But for a while the fighting continued and Christianity was divided and the East and West divide has remained, and Protestantism shattered Catholicism. The US made freedom of religion a constitutional right to stop people from persecuting and killing each other.

Then we have Islam, there is another divided God of Abraham religion with the divided people killing each other and although the Quaran says Muslims should respect all people of the book, Jews and Christians, we know the people of the book are fighting each other. Something else is happening besides wanting to know God's truth and how to live together. People continue to argue God's truth and how can we separate that from philosophy? Really? all these people continue to argue about God's truth and why do we say these arguments are different from philosophy?

Personally, at age 8 I asked a Sunday School teacher why Protestants and Catholics were divided and I didn't like her answer so I determined to find that answer for myself. That meant doing my best to know what everyone around the world believes and that includes Eastern and Western thinking. I am blown away by people wanting God's truth and not doing the same. That is like reading one history book and thinking the one version of history is the absolute truth and all other history books are wrong. :smirk:

Correct. Communist Russia’s population growth dropped by more than half from 1.8% a year in the 1950s to 0.8% in 1980-1981, due mostly to declining fertility.

The Soviet Union: population trends and dilemmas – NIH

A major cause was the abortion rate that was the highest in the world. The abortion rate in Capitalist America (and in the West in general) was much lower.

Abortion rate in the U.S. and Soviet Union 1970-1989

So, it seems that Socialism did have a major problem. In fact, the economic, cultural, and psychological impact of Socialism was so severe that former Socialist countries like Russia never recovered even decades after the collapse of Socialism. — Apollodorus

Well, your post was a pleasant surprise. That is the most supportive statement I have had in several years. Normally people attack what I am saying. It helps that you are working with information and just your opinion.

Dare I say life might go better if we enjoy being male and female and raising children. Today, gay people are doing a better job of that than straight people. God forbid that woman wants to be feminine to stay home to raise the children and support her husband. Forgive me, I have looked into joining a couple of different organizations where the requirement was to hate men and to hate being intentionally attractive to them. Like being a woman who enjoys being a woman, is terribly wrong. I know such a small sample of reality should not be generalized too far, but I am remembering an old New Woman magazine that attacked a first lady for being satisfied with being the first lady and not desirous of becoming president as though being a first lady had no value! :gasp:

In the 1970s I went from being a Mother Goddess, gardening, canning, sewing, knitting, and proud of all my domestic skills to provide for my family, to "just a housewife", It was a terrible experience for me. My self-esteem crashed! That sent me back to college and that did not go well either because the male of the household did not approve. :lol: Gibran wrote, we speak when we are not at peace with our thoughts. Hopefully, I am not the only one who thinks the full-time homemaker is a very valuable person playing an important role in our human experience.

I highly recommend it, especially as it is brief while being profound. One caveat for the potential female reader: traditional West African cultures, including the Igbo culture depicted by Achebe, were highly male-dominant and patriarchal...dare I say from the "Western" perspective, "male chauvanist verging on misogynistic"? The intended readers of Achebe, who was writing primarily for a West African audience, would have understood that, so the moral of Achebe's story would not have been obscured thereby. For a Westernized audience, though, the depiction of the cultural setting has the potential to shock the sensibilities of some, and so obscure Achebe's thesis. Even with this, though, it is definitely worth the read. — Michael Zwingli

You have piqued my interest. I am deeply interested in the environmental conditions that lead to matriarchy or patriarchy.

The God of Abraham religions are certainly patriarchal, and "male chauvinist verging on misogynistic" seems to describe reality in the US as well. I don't think this is helped with feminism that seems to include a hatred of men. But I am an odd duck. Despite the reality I have experienced, I think the greatest happiness and human good comes from family. I think democratic values are important for the best family experience, and that autocratic Industry led to autocratic families, and today we call the autocratic family dysfunctional. Of course, the religions are autocratic, an authority above the people, as well as patriarchal.

or easy to frustrate, and impatient — James Riley

Me too.

I don't think that's to be true in any absolute sense, but I will agree that being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat, perhaps substantially. To me, though, an unopinionated person is one of two types: either they are stupid, or they lack the courage of their convictions. To myself, both qualities are "disqualifatory", if you know what I mean. The first, because, from the genetic standpoint, I want my offspring to be "smart in relation", and the second because having a spouse who lacks axiologic ferocity simply poses a danger to my family and lineage. My advice: be true to your own self. Keep your books, and find "that guy".

I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes...
— Athena

Ha, well said. My absolute favorite novel of all time, despite the relative simplicity of it's prose (I tend to appreciate complex erudition, such as that of George Eliot, which is why I love Cicero so much...he is the unequalled champion of complex erudition) is a slim volume entitled "Things Fall Apart", by a Nigerian author named Chinua Achebe. It contains a brilliantly exposed statement of the destructivity of cultural imperialism, particularly as an adjunct of colonialism. — Michael Zwingli

:rofl: I love starting my day with a good laugh and "being unopinionated does widen the field somewhat" is a hilarious comment when I think of myself. I so admire the Asians I have known who do not get their backs up when someone says something that is disagreeable. They seem to go more easily with the flow. I don't think they are stupid or lack conviction, but rather accept it is as it is, and getting upset about it won't make things better. At least that is what Jon want said when I admired him for being reticent.

:lol: I have already slept with the best men in history and do not need a man. Genghis Khan was exciting but not my idea of a congenial person. He was a little rough on the edges if you know what I mean?

"Things Fall Apart", sounds like a great book to read. Right now we need to give much thought to our behavior and stupidity! The whole world is not envious of us and wanting to be like us. Our way of life is not sustainable and a few other problems go with it, such as the destruction of family, and creating people totally alone in the crowd, clawing at each other as they fight over the crumbs. Our violence against others and one's own self is sad. :cry: I don't think this will come to good.

I guess we need to realize that there are certain truths involved e.g. what we value are assertions (e.g. happiness is good) in morality. — TheMadFool

But that does not mean enjoying an ice cream or other superficial pleasures. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of the pursuit of happiness he was working with Aristotle's understanding of it and it meant the goal of human thought, an enriched life following the pursuit of knowledge. Not a wild weekend of binge drinking or getting a new car.

Truth in this sense is more like a founding principal than a decision about what to do, how we are to decide in a moral quandary. — Antony Nickles

Nicely said. Truth is a founding principle of democracy but I don't think that is well understood today. George Washington did not brag about how great he was but was concerned about being right with the help of God. Not to preach religion but to be humble. And your post suggests that humility as well. There is far more to know than can know, so we should always be humble as proceed.

The American culture I read of in old books is so different from our culture today.

I agree that a broad education is important. It does bring up the issue again of avoiding a rote understanding of truth. I take this as the difference between "knowing" the truth and accepting it (telling myself rather than being told). As well as understanding its depth of meaningfulness, we come to its importance as a personal process, a journey of my life maybe as much as my acknowledgement of its implications. The reading of Cicero that stuck with me was that it mattered to the truth who I was as a person, which I read as that I am part of the state of a truth. That this can be done well or poorly, rather than right or wrong. That we are not here concerned about ends (things going well). — Antony Nickles

Oh my, that last sentence seems like a good left jab that I was not expecting and my head is spinning. :lol: I was thinking yes I agree with what you are saying all the to that last sentence.

Take the threat of covid for example. If we do not eradicate it right now, it will become endemic instead of pandemic. That means it will be so much in our population it will be like the cold of the flu, something we live with forever instead of an irradicated disease.

Endemics, on the other hand, are a constant presence in a specific location. Malaria is endemic to parts of Africa. Ice is endemic to Antarctica. — Intermountain Health Care

We really need to get this right or we are not getting rid of Covid.

Another example, Mao meant well when he ruled how farmers would plant and how food would be managed, but he was scientifically wrong and that lead to millions of people starving to death. Trump ignoring the scientific evidence about pandemics is the same thing, with almost the same results of millions dying, but this time the problem might not go away.

Another example is Biden's Budget Plans. If he is right the US will be greatly benefited. If he is wrong it could mean economic disaster.

Democracy means nothing if it is not "concerned about ends". The moral is, if we don't get it right, things will go very wrong.

Michael, I see two ways to go with your post. I told a friend I got into an argument with my sister over some social issue and she looked at me with horror, and asked why I was even discussing that with her? I know there is a lot I do not discuss with neighbors to avoid unpleasant feelings. And I was really enjoying exchanging thoughts with @James Riley until all of a sudden we had a dismisunderstanding that became very unpleasant. That makes me question do we want to engage intellectually with people we want long-term relationships with? :lol: I was told if I want a man in life, I must give up my books.

Second, I think it is natural that we want our children to grow up appreciating the culture and values we teach them. This is very important to Jews, Christians, and others. This is a big issue with ethnically different people. When indigenous peoples' lives are severely disrupted by colonizers, it is very destructive to individuals and the tribe. Well-meaning missionaries destroyed tribes and when an Asian moves to the west, they want their children to remember the family's culture and values. Personally, I want all those differences preserved because it is what makes humans so interesting. But how much can public education accommodate those differences, or should it even try? Should we have one culture and specific shared values?

Oh my, maybe you rather have a robot that can be programmed, for your child, rather than a human one that might disappoint you. Perhaps a robot for a wife too? But you want to be very sure they are not sentient. You know as in the British TV series "Humans". When they are sentient they can be troublesome and even dangerous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sm23e0a5_w

I think this is pretty on topic. Your idea of an ideal mother is far from what I think a child needs. But it does make an interesting discussion.

My question is: How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

It depends on the quality of the therapist. The quality of the therapist depends on personality and training. There are several methods that can be used to resolve our mental health issues and different people will like different methods.

Because a therapist does not have a personal relationship with the client, this can be very helpful! I think most people have grandparents and chances are good they are wise, caring people but nobody listens to them.

Those of us who are grandparents have learned the hard way to keep our mouths shut or say things very, very carefully. The day of respecting our elders and family fidelity has passed. We are now all about our emotions and we know if you are unhappy it is our family's fault. Those toxic relationships you know.

The bottom line is people see therapists because family relationships are not working. Or occasionally medication is needed and the family is not qualified to deal with that.

This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?
— Athena

You got me. You win. The Plutocracy couldn't possibly have anything to do with the economy, oil, or the MIC.

but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?
— Athena

Nothing. You got me. You win.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. If you have a problem, blame government. — James Riley

Well, before families got together and decided to adopt the German model, families used to run everything. After families adopted the German model, an evil government/bureaucracy arose to subdue them, oppress them, turn them against each other, and milk them like a borrowed cow. Now families, oil companies, CEOs, majority shareholders and other common, salt-of-the-Earth folk suffer; while evil bureaucrats are each worth millions and billions of dollars, setting policy and regulations and forcing to common working oilman to send in all his hard earned money to keep the bureaucrats in the standard of living to which they want to become accustomed. — James Riley

Your smart-ass answers are the last straw. We are done.

If you don't like government/bureaucracy and what it is doing, that is primarily because you, the family and the community don't control it. As stated, the problem is not big government. The problem is who controls it. — James Riley

Great, what is it about the bureaucracy I do not like? How was the bureaucracy different before adopting the German model?

Nobody is laughing, except the MIC (Plutocracy). — James Riley

This is off topic but you do understand what oil has to do with all industrial economies and what military might has to do with controlling oil, right? What does the plutocracy have to do with those realities?

I suppose you could use Cheney and Halliburton to answer that question, but Cheney and the neocons are not the cause of the reality, they are only people with a good understanding of those realities and therefore know how to position themselves to take advantage of the realities. We could call them plutocrats and we most certainly can question their morality, but what do they have to do with our family values and social order?

Very accurately and succinctly said. I am very torn on this issue. I don't like the government compelling private citizens to do anything, but we must provide relief and hope to the less fortunate. I feel that the central problem is that of our culture, which is too individualistic and not communal enough to override basic human nature and the defensive mechanisms of the human mind. — Michael Zwingli

How about listening to women? A matriarchy is very different from a patriarchy. Since women have held seats of power, a whole lot more has been done for children and vulnerable people in general. The difference in the focus of women's lives compared to the male focus concerns me and I am not sure this difference will be maintained as women leave their homes to have careers or work in factories. The meaning of being a good woman has changed and what might be the ramifications of this change?

Well, just make sure you keep blaming the government while those who are responsible laugh all the way to themselves. — James Riley

Here is what you are saying,

The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition.[2][3] Throughout history, political thinkers and philosophers such as Winston Churchill, Alexis de Tocqueville, Spanish monarchist Juan Donoso Cortés and Noam Chomsky, have condemned plutocrats for ignoring their social responsibilities, using their power to serve their own purposes and thereby increasing poverty and nurturing class conflict; corrupting societies with greed and hedonism. — wikipedia

This thread is about social order, and especially about relying on the government for our needs or our families. I have said in the past our social order was based on family order and independence of government, that this is no longer true. I do not see your argument as addressing the family matter. How would you say a plutocracy determines our social order and family values?

Big money is not the cause. Without it, we would be much worse off for several reasons. One reason is fiat money.

There is nothing funny about our military spending. It is economically essential and right now China has far more advanced military technology and is in a position to win a nuclear war. We are seriously vulnerable right now.

Our school children get a free breakfast and lunch and if the family is low income the family can get a SNAP card for food, and medical care, and possibly assistance for housing and their education is free to them. There is not enough to meet the growing need for assistance, but paying for more is a challenge, and if we did not have a successful economic system (most of the time) none of that would be possible.

In the past, we didn't have any of that. Family had to depend on family and charity. By law, fathers were held responsible for providing for their families, and mothers were held responsible for caring for them.
I do not object to the government relieving mothers and fathers of their responsibilities, but there is a price for doing that and the price is not just money.

Ah, perhaps then you agree with Jesus when he said the poor will always be with us. He's been interpreted as saying that we should accordingly be generous to them. But we're not a generous people, are we? Except perhaps sporadically and by impulse. We care far too much about ourselves, our rights, our property, to trouble ourselves with others, and resent it when we're made to even indirectly. Why should other people have the benefit of our money? Here in God's favorite country we're not that far away now from the times in which John Steinbeck's character Tom Joad lived, and are different only to the extent that social welfare programs exist. — Ciceronianus

I am agreeable with everything you said and have nothing to argue or add to what you said, until your last paragraph. Yes, I agree with Jesus that we will always have the poor with us, but the 1970 recession taught me important things about myself and poverty. Up until this time I was one of the "nice people" doing my good thing for "those people", you know, the one's in need. I thought poverty was a meaningful experience that those of us born white and middle class could never have. The 1970 recession made me one of "those people".

The reason White middle class people could not have the meaningful experience of poverty is, number 1, they are privileged. They could play at poverty but as long as poverty is a choice it is not the real thing. As long as there are jobs to be had and family and friends to turn for help, poverty is a choice and not real thing. The recession meant no jobs and family and friends didn't have eoungh to share. We could not assemilate the young into the economy and when older people were laid off, they often lost everything. After years of tightening my belt, everything was worn out and breaking down and there was no money to replace it. That is when I became concerned about economics and the role government plays, which lead to understanding what mineral resources have to do with economies and little things like WAR.

This can get way off topic. Many things play into poverty and many things play into good times. Government plays a much larger role in this now than in the past. WWI was a huge turning point, and WW II made war a permanent factor in our lives. We are on a treadmill that does not turn off, but someday it may come to a sudden stop and once again our survival may depend more on family than the government and career opportunites. We can look to Rome for a better understanding of all of this.