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.

You said you understand what I have said, but I see no indication that you do. From you I see a completely different explanation of why things are as they are, and an objection to me not throwing away my explanation and accepting yours. But a pultocracy does nothing to change family order. Our present technology society has dramatically changed our sociial order as we are no longer ordered by family order. In our technological society a family can be any combination of people we want to call family and it can be very temporary, that does not work in the same way our past understanding of family worked. In the past family fidelity was more important than our emotions and the popular practice of calling one's family toxic and something to avoid. Programs for children modeled a health relationship of children and adults, not children in the roles of adults. We did not expect second graders to be as accedemic as college students being prepared to serve the state, not family.

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

I have tried to teach you HOW that came to be but you don't understand. — James Riley

When was the change made and why?

I did. I stipulated to it. Like umpteen times. But apparently not to your satisfaction. — James Riley

Please refer me to where you have paraphrased what I said about everything being controlled by policy instead of by individuals and I will pick up from there. What are the good reasons for changing the powers of government? Why is social security possible today and not in the past?

It's probably good that you stop. Because it's apparent that you don't understand that I DO understand what you are saying — James Riley

Prove it.

However, I don't think we've really tried very hard to have a state of us, where we view us as family, looking out for each other. — James Riley

I have already shown, in several parts of this work, by what means the inhabitants of the United States almost always manage to combine their own advantage with that of their fellow-citizens: my present purpose is to point out the general rule which enables them to do so. In the United States hardly anybody talks of the beauty of virtue; but they maintain that virtue is useful, and prove it every day. The American moralists do not profess that men ought to sacrifice themselves for their fellow-creatures because it is noble to make such sacrifices; but they boldly aver that such sacrifices are as necessary to him who imposes them upon himself as to him for whose sake they are made. They have found out that in their country and their age man is brought home to himself by an irresistible force; and losing all hope of stopping that force, they turn all their thoughts to the direction of it. They therefore do not deny that every man may follow his own interest; but they endeavor to prove that it is the interest of every man to be virtuous. I shall not here enter into the reasons they allege, which would divert me from my subject: suffice it to say that they have convinced their fellow-countrymen. — Tocqueville

Thanks to the change in education, not many people know what a virtue is, nor that we once thought a virtue is synonymous with strength. Like Darwinism, Dawkins's selfish gene dominates our thinking, not the literature of the past that advanced a different morality.

My belief is not limiting my ability to understand your continued reference to the German model of bureaucracy. Did you know that this is like the fifth time you've brought this model up? — James Riley

This is where I am going to stop because I see no reason to think you understand the difference between the bureaucratic order we had, that made the individual very important, and the bureaucratic order we have today that crushes individual liberty and power. When this is not understood, nothing else of importance can be understood stood.

That is unfortunately true. The leadership of the Third Reich (who probably never even read Nietzsche) cherry-picked utterly uncontextualized terms and phrases from his writings, and applied them in grotesque ways as suited their own purposes. Nietzsche was a highly analytical and complex thinker who dealt with some of the more difficult questions of the philosophy of mind, and had the misfortune while publishing his thoughts, of being a highly introverted personality which was itself urgently suppressing the effects of a latent mental illness. This has made him an easy mark for characterization as some type of "Proto-Nazi" monster by those who have not bothered to study and come to grips with the meanings presented within his opera. There is a good presentation of Nietzsche's personality online here if you are interested: https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA005/English/RSPI1960/GA005_c01_1.html — Michael Zwingli

You said that well and I am so glad you easily grasped why I associate him with the Nazis. And it is the same today with modern Nazis. I really don't think our present Nazis are deep thinkers. :lol: I fault education for technology for this problem! In the US, education was modeled after Athens education for well-rounded individual growth and we used the Conceptual Method, teaching increasingly complex concepts. That 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with the German model of education for technology and left moral training to the church which brings to Hegel.

Hegel was also amazing but his thoughts are tangled with Protestantism and an idea of God and nationalism that some people find objectionable and that brings us to Tocqueville.

The following contains the explanation of despotism that seems to perfectly describe what is happening. That is one of the last things of which he speaks after beginning with praising how Americans do not depend on the government but work together to take care of those things needing to be done, such as building a courthouse or organizing a posse; forming unions and granges. Each one of his subjects could be food for thought for new threads and if you want to start a thread and build on what he has said, please pm me.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm

I would like to read your Nietzche link but it does not fit on my screen and I do not know how to resolve that problem.

How about Cicero and the notion of right reason? It is a democratic value to know the truth because right reason is essential to things going well, and wrongly reasoning can lead to trouble. Education for good moral judgment is about understanding cause and effect and the importance of right reasoning. This also goes with Socrates' concern about expanding our consciousness because if we don't know enough, we are more apt to make bad decisions. And the miracle of democracy is having many points of view, a broad consciousness.

Ignoring the pandemic because of not wanting to close businesses and loose votes, cost Trump the last election because of the number of people who voted against Trump's reasoning. If the goal is to eradicate a deadly disease, Trump obviously did not have the right reasoning. I think moral judgment based on truth is very important.

The weakening of the concept of "perpetuity" both in general and in particular: familial, social, environmental, etc., has definitely weakened the concept of "family", and nearly destroyed the concept of "lineage". Genealogical research has today become no more than an exercise in curiosity. The weakening of perpetuity has also resulted in modern cultures having become "rootless", and in the citizens of modern societies having become absorbed in their "selves" (self-absorbed), as that rootlessness has increased and the importance of place and of extended family have diminished. — Michael Zwingli

I think you have made a very important point and the efforts by Native Americans and people of color support that point.

Native Americans are doing a good job in fighting against that rootlessness and so have people of color stressed the importance of family and knowing our roots, but the fight of people of color is different from the Native American one. Native Americans have a chance of reclaiming their ancestral land, and that just doesn't work as well for people of color, however, people of color are making progress on claiming historical sites and being sure their story becomes part of our national consciousness.

National anthems are symbols, just like national flags and any other type of nationalist symbolic device. Their purpose, whether there is war or there is peace and prosperity, they have in common with all similar devices: the psychological, and especially emotional, binding of the individual and his affections to the state. — Michael Zwingli

That is well said, and this thread is about our liberty and power being crushed by loyalty to the state, and what family order has to do with having liberty and power. The US has stood ready for war ever since Eisenhower established the Military-Industrial Complex and education for a technological society with unknown values.

My parents came unglued when I told them I was looking for fire hazards in our garage and had to report them. That night at the dinner table, it was made clear, our evil enemy required people to carry ID and to report their family and neighbors to authority. We now carry ID from the day we are born and Texas has really gone overboard on reporting family and neighbors to authority.

As I just said to James, people are aware the US has changed and they are desparate to get back their liberty and power. But refusing to masks in a pandemic and refusing to get vaccinated is not going to make things better.

Read what I said again: "can and should."

If you keep blaming big government instead of those who use it as their personal tool, then you clearly don't know how it can or should work. Did they teach you about how money buys government? Or did they just teach you that we live in a democracy/republic/federal system and all the good little citizens are in charge and actually slitting their own throats with their own government?

You keep raising 1958, the German model, bureaucracy, etc., as if government is this thinking individual evil person who pulled all that out of thin air as a way to better manage the serfs. I keep telling you to quit doing what the Plutocracy has trained you to do: blame big government, so you don't focus on what they are up to. It's like taking a gun and throwing it in jail while letting the shooter walk. It's like the shooter saying "Don't blame me, blame the gun!" And then you are like "Well, let's render the gun inoperable and all will be fine. It makes no sense.

Thanks for the education on Alexis, et al. I digested all that forty years ago. I'm looking at what is happening in the U.S. today. — James Riley

I think your belief is limiting your ability to understand the change in organizational power that comes with adopting the German model of bureaucracy and the education that goes with it. It may be futile to continue this argument but I will try.

Tocqueville foresaw a change, away from family order to bureaucratic order. Do you have any thoughts on what makes the two possible forms of social organization different?

At a 1917 National Education Association conference a teacher quoted a poet in India, Tagore. "Whatever their efficiency, such great organizations are so impersonal that they bear down on the individual lives of the people like a hydraulic press whose action is completely effective in crushing out individual liberty and power." That defines the enemy we fought against. Then we turned around and adopted this enemy's bureaucratic organization and later the enemy's education for technology for industrial and military purpose. We are now what we defended our democracy against, and people feel this in their bones, and their desperation to restore their personal power, they have refused to wear masks in a pandemic or to get vaccinated when this became possible. We are living with insanity because there is no understanding of how we became as our enemy. There was a time when the most important authority in our lives was family, not the government.