I don't know where you got that you need AI to present your case. — Hanover

I am making a case for everyone who needs aids to achieve what they want to achieve. If this was not about everyone, I would not have started a thread. When I studied gerontology at the U of O, the experts were asking if old people withdrew from society because that was their choice, or are the old people pushed out. I can answer that question with my personal experience.

It is a combination of both, not getting the job because of being too old, or not being able to do the job for physical reasons. The people I speak with agree that technology is closing us out, but some us are learning to use technology to our benefit. Senile people don't need to stop driving; they just need to learn how to use their cell phones and the GPS function.

I was never the smartest kid in the room, and if it weren't for Grammarly, my post would be impossible for me to understand. I relate to the people who have a hard time keeping up, and I hope attitudes regarding AI change. But at the same time, I suspect AI may be a serious threat. We fought a war to throw off the control of a king, and now some people want to turn everything over to AI. :scream: that is alarming.

Oh, oh I wonder how Descartes would handle this issue with his understanding of animals and humans being machines. What is the meaning of humanity if a machine rules over us?

↪Athena I do appreciate your thoughts, and no one's objective is to make anyone's life more difficult, but the rule has an important purpose in assuring we are communicating with one another and not with bots.

So, the rule does stand. That being said, it does appear you've responded to me without AI coherently and passionately, which means you will do just fine without sending us bot created messages. — Hanover

Surely my pathetic efforts to behave like an intelligent person should prove my posts are made by a human. I do not see how quoting AI is worse than quoting any other source of information; it is just faster, easier, and more efficient.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to think I have the authority of an expert. Wikipedia and AI are accumulate information that is corrected when it needs to be corrected. So it is useful to use as a source of information to support our arguments.

And thanks for the confidence in my abilities. However, if you were having my experience, I don't think you would be so confident. I would not be surprised if a year from now, I couldn't even log in. If my life has any value, it is to increase understanding. I have a heart condition and I chose to do nothing about it, unless a medicine or pace pacemaker will improve the quality of my life. I do not want to lose my mind before I lose my life. This is not about just me; it is about getting old and senile. From my point of view, allowing people to use walkers and AI is a kindness because such aids extend the time a person can function and participate in meaningful activities.

↪Athena It's a rule that is unenforceable in practice. — Banno

Now that is an ethical issue isn't it? We keep our liberty by agreeing to obey the laws. That does not mean approving of the law. When we disagree with a law, it is our duty to explain why we are opposed to the law and do our best to get the law changed.

Effectively, Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and the preservation of democracy. Finding fault with the democracy does not mean he thought something else was better. I think he wanted the people to do democracy better.

Besides I don't own the forum and maybe if I did, I would think it necessary to forbid the use of AI.

"If you can't explain your idea to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- (some dead guy) — Outlander

I am old and have mental issues. Like many people my age, I often struggle to think of the word I want to say. I also use a walker. For me, telling me I can not use AI is like telling me I can not use my walker.

I interpreted your quote as saying people who struggle with memory and communication issues are not desired members of the forum. Desired members have excellent communication skills and know enough about the subject to explain it to a child. I can't even explain things to adults. I seriously doubt I meet the high standards you all want to keep.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI offers the best explanations
You want the best explanation for why AI can't be used here

Ergo, ask AI why you can't use AI here. — Hanover

Okay, here is what I got when I asked "AI why do forum owners reject you?"

AI, forum owners, including moderators and administrators, may reject users or content generated by AI for various reasons, including the following:
Concerns about content quality and authenticity: AI-generated content can sometimes lack the nuance, creativity, and originality of human contributions. Forum owners may want to ensure that the content shared in their community reflects genuine human perspectives and insights, and may be concerned about a decline in quality if AI-generated content becomes too prevalent.

.

There are more concerns. Frankly, I don't care about them because AI improves my ability to spread information. If I were a photographer and could use the best camera, would that make sense? When we get better tools we can do better and I need the better tool because my brain is not that good.

Sorry I do not understand your explanation. I am sure you know "one lone OP keeps posting on the front page", but I don't know what you are talking about. Is this something like a signature, but instead of being at the bottom of a post, it is at the top? How does that make AI a bad thing?

I talk a lot about things I don't understand. Why would anyone come here if it were not a desire to have a better understanding? This is not just about what I have to say, but what others have to say. Do you want me to go away because I am not smart enough to be here. :gasp: That really hurts.

↪Athena If we had already gotten everything wrong we would not be here today. Tilt too far into conservatism or liberalism and it will result in distaster. History has shown this and life experience has shown me this personally too on an individual level. — I like sushi

What an interesting statement. How does liberalism threaten us? Can a liberal such as myself have good moral judgment?

Society' also recognizes that there is a cadre of people who do not have much of a future in the economy. Excellence in education for this group would be a wasted effort. The larger population in the middle, the 60% of children, have a broader future in the economy, and receive such education as is required. A lot of these people in the middle will be respectable members of the 'working class'; they will have jobs, families and be major contributors to the economy, but they do not need elite skills.

I don't like it, but that seems to be the way it is. Raising up the underclass and the less skilled members of the working class isn't an educational function. Even if the schools were funded and prepared to deliver excellent education to every child, it would not match the needs of the existing national economy. — BC

That was not our reality when my grandmother was a teacher, and the priority for education was good citizenship and helping each child discover his/her talents and interests. We are talking about the enlightenment and the death of it. We are talking about the very meaning of the democracy we inherited and the Military Industrial Complex that has replaced it.

The Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that sought to improve society through fact-based reason and inquiry. The Enlightenment brought secular thought to Europe and reshaped the ways people understood issues such as liberty, equality, and individual rights. Today those ideas serve as the cornerstone of the world’s strongest democracies.
https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-enlightenment-and-how-did-it-transform-politics

The Enlightenment placed its hope in the power of human reason and scientific inquiry to improve society and individual lives. This period emphasized individual rights, progress, and the potential for human betterment through rational thought and knowledge. Thinkers like René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes explored the role of reason and hope in shaping human action and understanding. AI

Why is it better for me to use the first quote and against the rules to use the second one? I much prefer the second quote.

But to your thoughts on education, what are your education concerns? Supplying the employers with trained employees and securing economic goals. The Greek philosophers would choke on such materialistic goals, but those goals are ideal for the Military Industrial Complex. The most important element of our liberty is having good moral judgment and we prepared the young for that without religion until the 1958 National Defense Education Act left moral training to the church.

Why is money so important? The only people with less income than I have are the people who have no income. But my life is rich and full, thanks to self-education and the internet that connects me with people who share my interests and concerns. :lol: I have to laugh at myself. I feel so strongly about being okay with material poverty, but not okay with intellectual poverty. What are we not going to teach all the children who are not college material?

quote="L'éléphant;1006735"]There's an erroneous understanding that the influence of parents and teachers last forever. There is actually a point in the life of children when the influence of the outside world, social media, advertising, outside friends takes precedence and may replace the teachings of good parents. This should be taught to parents and educators alike. — BC

There is a lot of truth in what you say. I experienced that kind of disjunction as a gay man. I moved from small town/rural life, oriented around heterosexuality and traditional lifestyles, to an urban environment, and was greatly influenced by the norms of the liberationist gay male community of the late '60s and early 70s.

However, as unlike a gay lifestyle was from growing up in Podunk, MN, a lot of the values and behaviors of my parents remained.

The influence of school experiences is probably weaker than it is thought to be. The multiplication tables I learned have endured. Ditto the grammar and spelling lessons. The largest part of my school experience was being socialized to an externally regulated work day. I resented it then and I still resent it. I don't know what school is teaching these days.

So, they don't become shocked when a person raised in a happy household with all necessities provided become a killer of their own spouse due to domestic turmoil.
Plenty of doctors, white collar executives, teachers have committed unimaginable criminal acts.
— L'éléphant

We often have too little information about a violent person's childhood to make a connection. But in a significant number of cases, (I believe) bad childhood experiences contributed to bad adult behaviors. However, a lot of people with pretty bad upbringing manage to NOT re-enact their childhood trauma on others.[/quote]

I like the discussion you are having. What motivates us to right or wrong? I have walked through hell. We all must go to hell from time to time to get a sense of meaning. But we should not go there without the help of the gods, because we can so easily get lost in hell. That means depression or even psychotic events. The gods are concepts that can help us find our way.

I was in hell because of being traumatized when I was a year old. It was a medical thing and no one knew of post-stress syndrome back in the day, and no one ever thought that a medical problem would interfere in my life so much. I was lucky to come across an explanation of post-stress syndrome and also a book about traumatized children, and I gave this information to a counselor I was seeing, and he knew how to fix the problem once he knew what caused it. The rest of my explanation of hell and gods comes from mythology and became very important to my reasoning.

Joseph Campbell was the guru of mythology. He believed humans need a shared mythology and that when we do not have that, we are forced to create our own mythology using the people in our lives as the gods and monsters of our private mythology. That is where psychogly comes in.

The psychologist Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., wrote Goddesses in Everywoman and a book for males, Gods in Every Man. She says the gods and goddesses are prototypes. Her books are fascinating as she tells how different childhood experiences affect the different prototypes.

Oh, oh one more thing that strongly influences us; our position in the family. If we are the first child, middle child, or last child, it matters.

I hope someday we break free from the mythology that has dominated most of our lives and come up with a better understanding of our human existence than the one religion gives us.

This is the kind of thinking I find most scary. There is something to be said for conservative values as much as there are for liberal ones. — I like sushi

That could be an interesting thread. I am kind of shocked that we appear to disagree about the need to rethink everything. At what time in history did people think the way you believe we should think? Are you good with justifications for slavery and justifications for moving native Americans off their land and intentionally turning their children against them? How about exploiting the poor to accumulate national wealth. When were our thoughts well-informed and just, rather than something we need to rethink?

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

It would not be my guess, but the sciences that determine facts. Anthropology is one of the main sciences, and the study of DNA is another, and math plays a part in this, too. Many books are written on the subject, and it does not reduce to a post. However, you might want to start a thread about evolution versus the God who made us of mud. I don't think the discussion belongs in this thread.

What have I said bout human nature regarding parenting and growing up that you disagree with?

think this is something we should be more concerned about that adaptation. We can only step forward confidently once we appreciate what happened before us. This is likley why human progress tends to take the form of 3 steps forwards then 2 steps back. — I like sushi

I am not sure what we need to know about the past, but I do think it is possible we are in the resurrection, and it is archaeology, geology, and related sciences that are resurrecting the past, and it is our purpose today to assimilate all this knowledge and rethink everything.

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

I do not just make up thoughts. What I think, is the result of learning. If you think my facts are wrong, tell me which facts and what you think is correct with better information. That is how philosophy started. Coming from Athens, it is essential that we get our beliefs right. This is not equal to arguing mythology. It is science with facts that either are or are not true.

↪Athena Even assuming you've accurately described humanity's educational odyssey from the cave until today in those few paragraphs and you've deciphered with accuracy "what is natural to our species," take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature — Hanover

:lol: :rofl: That is hilarious. Just try to go against nature and see how well that works.

It is really curious to me why anyone would think ignoring nature is a good idea. Lacking knowledge of nature is a good thing, why? Modern people want to believe they are very smart, but I don't think ignorance or denial of nature leads to that. :joke:

Generally speaking I think parents assume the part they play in how their children turn out is vastly overestimated. That is not to say that parenting does not effect them, but the parent's job is most important in the first few years of development. — I like sushi

You are right, and I want to add some thoughts that support that.

Each generation is different. Another term we can use is "cohort". A cohort is everyone who comes of age at the same time. A cohort is defined by its time in history. I am a baby boomer. Most of our parents hated war, and Beatniks came out of that, then greasers, then hippies, and for my son and daughter, it was meth that determined the flow of history. Good luck to the parents who try to prevent their sons and daughters from going with the movement of their time. And is that really what we want? Our lives are changing faster and faster. Do we want our children to cling to the past?

I am thinking of a troop of apes trying to survive hard times do to climate change. Those who are not flexible and willing to try new things are the least apt to survive. It is in our genes to adapt to change, and it is too bad if our parents perish because they can not make the change. Young people are much more apt to try new things, because if they die, they are easy to replace. But biologically, our brains become more resistant to change because nature can not afford to lose its breeding populations, and sometimes the old and tried ways are best.

Sometimes, many years of life experience lead to wisdom, so we should all follow the health rules, including exercise, just in case someone might benefit from our memory of the past and gained wisdom.

What do you, Philosophers, tell prospective parents about how to raise (Old Norse, raisa) their children so that they will be good citizens, good parents themselves, and good thinkers?

So you haven't reared (Old English, rǣran) so much as a hamster, children are the future and how they are brought up (OE) matters to everyone, parents or not. — BC

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

We might want to know something about the history of education. Education began at the dawn of our use of language, around the campfire, when we thought of ourselves as members of a tribe and were not as individualistic as we are today. We have such tribal people today. Our individualism and family units, rather than tribal units, began with farming and owning land separate from everyone else's. Rather than the hunter-gatherer organization, without no concept of separate property rights. I am trying to convey a different consciousness than we assume today. The point is that the first thing we learn in the tribe is how to behave. We learn our tribe's myths and why we do things as we do. Everyone in the tribe reinforces the behaviors of the tribe and the reasoning of their myths. This is what is natural to our species, and I want to stress that EVERYONE REINFORCES THE WAYS AND REASONING OF THE TRIBE.

Much later, the Romans were organized by family order, and the father was responsible for training the sons, while the mother trained the daughters. Eventually, they had schools, but it is not until the Greeks that education got really interesting. Before this, Sparta was communal and had a tribal education led by the leaders and focused on war. Males learned to fight, and females learn how to keep things going while the men were gone to war giving them more equality than Athenian females had. On the other hand, Athens had education for individuals, and later Hellenism was adopted by the Roman schools.

I want to throw in Genghis Khan. He made it unquestioned that his people should never settle down and start accumulating things like the city people do, because the city way of life, with its division of rich and poor people, leads to immorality.

I always think of Cicero’s assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of one’s character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).
15 hours ago
Barkon
194
Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Antony Nickles

I like both statements because both are a higher standard of morality than lives centered on self-interest.

Last night I listened to a lecture about emotional intelligence. I think we might enter this subject with Descartes' ideas of animals being mechanical and of humans as mechanical, like the rest of the animals, but then going a step further with thoughts and emotions forming another level of reality. For better or worse, we can manifest a more complex reality of thought and feelings. There can be no knowledge without language. When that knowledge becomes the written word, that is another step in consciousness. When the written word is shared in gatherings and then with the printing press, it becomes widespread knowledge that is another step in consciousness.

Here is a problem- I have read science must be completely detached from feelings/emotions, and I think education for a technological society has been so prejudiced against feelings, that we are smart but no longer wise. That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right?

What interests me is that the “object” in your examples is the act, identified as what it is without the speaker (though there is the individual to hold to account). We are all able (though some more astutely than others) to judge a slight, an insult, a tone, and what is inconsiderate or provocative behavior. Of course there are tricky cases, and the variables of circumstance, and mistakes (in judgment), but some will take this to the absurd that we can’t decide in any case, and begin to talk about “what I meant” as if it were tied to something inside them. But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at.
4 days ago — Antony Nickles

I want to clarify, I am thinking of everyone, the whole of society, and even things like economics and advertising. :heart: The more you all make me think, the more I realize, and this is why I come to forums. It just happens the thinkers here are better at giving me that wonderful feeling I get when I see a bigger picture. In two other forums I have a negative experience, because what I want is not what they have to give. :lol: It is rather dumb to keep trying to get something from others when they don't have that to give.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, assumed well-bred men function with a high degree of virtues, and could understand the need to do business with good ethics and good moral judgment. Today's advertising has hit a low in ethics, and I think this is having a negative effect on the whole of society.
You would not run into someone's home and scream at people, but we have tolerated the internet and TV advertisers preying on us with unpleasant attention-getting behavior, and we are okay with extortion. You know, doing something unpleasant to others unless you are paid not to harass them.

This is about the culture we experience daily, our relationships, and the sense of power or lack of it. This affects our whole economy and politics. I want to leave my family a better world, so I think a lot about good moral judgment and the enlightenment and democracy that are based on the idea we can do better.

(try to disrespect a marine, or an abuelita). — Antony Nickles

What do you mean by that? I would think a marine might handle a bad situation very well and would go well with my reply to Jack. As I thought of this whole subject, I realized the people I want in my life have a lot of good qualities, and all these qualities contribute to good communication. This makes me want to know about the Marines' training.

My study of the history of education from old books about that history says the priority purpose of the earliest education was behavior. What did it mean to be a good Spartan or a good Athenian or Cherokee, etc.. How were they taught? Your mention of a marine makes this wondering even more interesting to me because it speaks of needs today.

Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'. — Jack Cummins

I like that phrase 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding. — Jack Cummins

I think the people I admire most are those with a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of humor, a positive attitude, good listening skills, and all this contributes to good reasoning. Hmm, after giving this some thought, that is a lot to ask of others, but they surely would be more fun, than those without these qualities.

My thought of people engaging in a war of ideas is, these are grumpy people with a negative attitude, and not even more knowledge of the subject would make them fun to be with. But here is a catch 22. Everything would go better for everyone if we all felt good about who we are, and we didn't take ourselves too seriously, and we really enjoyed sharing ideas. You know, not a war of ideas, but the delight of children discovering something new.

If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement. — I like sushi

Perfect! You used the right words to clarify the thought I had, but I did not have the necessary words to express my thought.

I want to develop in myself the habit of responding formally with better logic skills. I can not do that with people who do not understand the difference and jump into arguments without having enough information to discuss the subject, so they attack the person instead of the reasoning. They are playing an aggressive game I don't want to play.

Ouch, I am sooo sorry, but I think I have some sexist ideas associated with my judgment. I say that because I am uncomfortable with that thought. But I think women have played an important role in developing civilizations, and a man who understands what you said is totally awesome! Unfortunately, there are not enough of them. I do not want equality with the average male. But imagine a civilization that operates on a higher level.

In the US, the Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice, and the spirit of America are female, but we have lived under male domination with ministers telling their flocks that Trump is chosen by God to rule over us. What is going on here? He is not my idea of the dignified man I think should be representing America.
Doing battle in the WrestleMania ring might be different from the negotiating skills of diplomacy.

Nevertheless, I think many other states of being have been lumped together with “being offended” to make them all seem like an overreaction to simply, as it were, being slighted. Obviously, in taking offense, there is the sense of being shocked, affronted, annoyed, or displeased. And this implies that we merely resent our pleasure, comfort, or decorum being upset; that our feathers have simply been ruffled. Thus the pejorative implication that the insult may be simply “perceived”, and such mild reactions imply that the party offended are those that usually “can’t be bothered”, the privileged, the “status quo”, those “easily offended”, and so where is the real harm? — Antony Nickles

I think you thought things out very well. Now I wish I knew where I put my copy of "Emotional Intelligence". It seems to me that someone who is repeatedly offensive lacks emotional intelligence. There is no point in arguing the matter with such a person, because the behavior will not change. It is like telling someone s/he stepped on your toes, and the person snapping back, "move your toes". This person desires to dominate and control, and I don't want to submit to that nor engage in an argument about it.

I think there is an important difference between "I think that is wrong because____" and "You are wrong".
That is so simple, but not everyone gets it.

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages). — Antony Nickles

I did not read all of that but enough to believe people can disagree and remain pleasant. I am not going to fuss over right and wrong, or true or false, but speak of my experience because that is most on my mind. What I read was pleasing, like good music. It did not excite unpleasant emotions, so it felt good like a walk along a river on a nice day. That is what I want. To be both mentally stimulated and physically pleasant. Reading the link confirmed it is possible.

our idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

I was raised by a divorced mother who worked for low pay. As a teenager I dressed in black, smoked, and I was ready for a fight. The first guy I almost married became a Hells Angel. It was important to be tough. :lol: In my later years, I have a different understanding of being tough. But I know poverty and rough neighborhoods. My sister and I are sensitive about what separates us from mainstream society.

Dick and Jane textbooks and later TV and music, influenced my ideas of what to value. In this way, I was in step with my cohort.

My school teacher grandmother was perhaps the most influential person in my life, and I always hung out with older people, except for my teen years. The older women in the Toastmistress Club were great mentors. Everyone should have a mentor. And the Greek gods and Goddesses became very important in my struggle to be independent. They taught me how to be my own hero. Thanks to my grandmother, who taught me the importance of reading.

I've always found your posts to be a model of courtesy and have no idea why you think you might be 'thrown out' for saying so. I completely agree with the importance of manners (and wish my grandsons had more of them ;-) ) I think the more delicate point is, how to disagree with others whilst remaining civil. That is especially important in philosophy and in navigating online discussions. My experience is, I have plenty of disagreements, some of them quite heated, but I try and refrain from inflammatory language and bomb-throwing. But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.)

Anyway - overall in total agreement, and the model of 'paideia' is certainly one that we should all aspire to. — Wayfarer

I have to admit I tend to react and say things spontaneously, falling way short of being the refined person I want to be. So I try to avoid people who bring out the worst in me. It is so much easier to be the person I want to be, when I am engaging refined people who are as I want to be.

This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others. — praxis

Thank you. I am enjoying comparing a past I read about and in some cases experienced, with today, and the talk of the young people who are just becoming adults. Some believe the new young people give us hope. I remember reading long ago that our societies swing from one extreme to another.

I know, as a matter of fact, we have been through some difficult social transitions. :lol: Checking the spelling of "transitions" led to learning today that it means sexual transitions and laws regulating personal choices. I was thinking of the transition to women's rights. That was the big issue when I was young. Each cohort has its defining issues. I think Economic crashes like the Great Depression and more recent recession, and wars were damaging to society as a whole.

But my grandmother's 3 rules bring out the best in us.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. This is about our character; it doesn't matter if the person we are interacting with is the mayor of a bum.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.
I think these rules would resolve a lot of problems.

As long as honesty is not mistaken as bad manners I generally agree. Meaning, I would rather someone was honest and impolite than polite and trying too hard not to upset anyone.

The biggest problem of dialogue on these forums is the lack of ability to read emotions. I have managed to have a couple of video chats with people on this forum and it seems far easier to get the emotional intent across but not so easy to articulate in the moment. — I like sushi

I may be wrong, but I want my last days to be pleasant. I want to discuss things that interest me with those who are informed and are also interested in the subject. I hate it when it appears someone knows nothing about a subject and appears to be uninterested in the subject, but for whatever reason, starts attacking the person who posted.

I like using :grin: the faces to communicate my feelings if I want to communicate a feeling. For sure, we interpret people differently when we think we are on friendly terms with someone. Good manners are important because they work with total strangers, who may not react well to kidding. Good manners are more formal, and that works well when we live in large populations.

I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict. — Antony Nickles

I am curious. Can you give me an example of one of these guys personally attacking another one?

I am really wanting to know about Descartes' notions about animals being mechanical and humans being beyond what is mechanical. That should be its own thread, and if you know about that, would you please start and thread and let me know.

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

You seem to think you represent teachers. What justifies that?

What do you think of grade school textbooks before 1958, when we changed the purpose of education?

Sara H.Fahey spoke about Public Schools and American Patriotism at the 1917 National Education Association Conference about why an institution for making good citizens was also good for making patriotic citizens. She was proud of preparing the young to unionize. She was proud of educating immigrant children about American values, and that the immigrant children would learn from their parents.

My grandmother was a teacher at the time, and she felt so passionate about defending democracy in the classroom she was in her 80s, before she stopped teaching. When she had to retire, she joined VISTA and worked with migrant children. Then she volunteered in schools. When she died, I wanted to know the set of values every child learned, so I started buying old textbooks and books about education. I know, from the health textbook, the math textbook, and the reading books, that children were taught to be respectful of others, and to be considerate, and family values, and virtues, and character values.

In 1917, education for technology and vocational training were added to education, but education for good moral judgment and good citizenship remained the priority of education until 1958.

Okay, your mention of gun violence led me to see if the local school shooting was the first school shooting. To my amazement, there is a record of school shootings dating back to 1840. Each one is explained.

I think we need to be more alert when dealing with teenage males. It seems this is a rough time for teenagers and especially males. Young men who have access to weapons may not be a threat, but if they are like Kipland Kinkel, excessively fascinated with guns, bombs, death, and killing, then all weapons need to be removed. Kip struggled with evil thoughts for a long time before he flipped out.

Primitive tribes handled this with rites of passage. Perhaps that is better than ignoring a serious problem?

How to make a child into a good thinker is tricky... Trick them into thinking that learning is fun, or at least show them that the product of learning is desirable? — VagabondSpectre

Learning is a whole lot of fun. My school teacher grandmother had me draw a picture and then tell the story of the picture. She wrote my story and from then on, I believed I was a good writer. She played Scrabble with me and a card game called Flinch, then my uncle took over with Cribbage, Pool, and Chess. :grin:

My kitchen was a great laboratory when great-grandchildren visited. Baking soda and vinegar are amazing when mixed together. Filling a pan with salt water and then boiling the water out, leaves us with salt. Cooking foods that require measuring cups and spoons is a favorite way for grandmothers to teach math. And what can be more fun than nature walks?

Statistically, children who have active grandparents to visit do better.

I can't say that I've ever offered unsolicited advice to prospective parents about how they ought to raise their children, and I'm not sure how well received it would be. My guess is that I'd tell them what I did, and knowing that my children are without flaw, they should take my advice. — Hanover

Pay attention to the child's school! I don't know how we came to holding parents 100% responsible for raising children when it was a priority purpose of education to prepare our young for life and good citizenship. Our children are being destroyed and driven to suicide by their schools, communities, and online activity.

I believe the first school mass killing happened in the high school where my daughter was a student. We were new to the area and needed help because my X had abandoned us during the 1970s recession, when people were losing everything and it was next to impossible to get a job. A young man who needed help stayed with us for a while, as did many teenagers needing help, passed through our home. The school was so impersonal that no child got help.

At this time, a columnist published an article saying teachers should not have to waste their time with poor students. I was horrified and called him to discuss this. He was very proud of himself because so many teachers appreciated what he said.

The young man who entered the school ready to kill, had already killed his parents. His parents were teachers and lived in a good neighborhood, if you want to call a totally dysfunctional neighborhood a good neighborhood. His older sister was a model student and a good daughter. What could go wrong?

The principal was made aware of the fact that the young man was having a problem, and the principal in a school where teachers should not have to waste their time on poor students, mishandled the crisis that was brewing. A couple of days later, several students were shot. I think one teacher and a couple of students were killed. So much for teachers not having to waste their time on poor students.

Around this time, two of my daughter's friends ended up in prison for killing another female friend in a Satanic ritual. I think we are struggling to make our schools and children safe, and I think a return to preparing the young for life and good citizenship could turn things around. Between now and then, we need to be more realistic about what a parent can do, when our schools are no longer helping the parents raise the children, because the schools are preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values. The schools are a very important part of the problem and the solution. Parents can not prepare their children for life in a culture where people do not know values and do not what to help the children.

But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.) — Wayfarer

YES! Our times are a little tenser than I would like. And as I sit here with books about the history of education, and a memory of my grandmother and her generation, I am thinking we might learn something from the past. We don't have to reinvent this wheel, but we need to know the power of education and what war and technology have to do with changing education. It isn't just about me, but the whole nation. Possibly the whole world. Young men learning to make bombs may not be as important as learning about life and our cultural experience of ourselves.

Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?

Begging your pardon, of course. — bongo fury

I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules?

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

Okay in the weeks I have been gone, I was working on a thread about the history of education, and in ancient times, education was mostly about behavior. The best way to present this is to present that history. There is nothing I would enjoy doing more than discuss the history of education, but I am cowering in the corner, begging not to be hit. I want to be more cautious this time. The discussion would be good only if that is what others also want. It just is not fun if the only thing others want to do is prove me or others wrong.

You gave me a lot to think about. I migrated from this forum to the history forum because I wanted to discuss things from a historical point of view with people who knew the history. I gained a lot, but it deteriorated and became so unpleasant I am thankful for this refuge. Rarely have I had a problem with the people who post here, because the people here are thinkers, they are not king of the hill, I have to take you down, players. If one does not want to get knocked around like a football player, perhaps that person shouldn't play football.

Hum, interesting :nerd: . Repeatedly, an individual has made an important historical discovery and been crushed by those in seats of power, preventing an advancement in history for many years. I don't think the same thing happens in philosophy. We get that my point of view may not be the same as yours. We may argue our point of view without attacking others for their point of view. The last straw in the History forum was someone refusing to accept information about what the Twelve Tablets have to do with Roman education because those Tablets are not with us today. All we have are written records about them. The guy had zero interest in exploring what we can know from the records. He just wanted to prove me wrong based on the fact that we do not have the original Tablets. How stupid. What do these guys do? Look for posts they can argue against, even when they care nothing about the subject?

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong?

Chimps and cats and other animals are curious. I don't think a God created humans. I think we evolved from an ape like animal and that we would make better decisions if we built our beliefs on science rather than mythology.

How can ignorance be bliss? — MoK

AI says

"The saying "ignorance is bliss" suggests that not knowing certain things can lead to a more peaceful and worry-free state of mind."

Now add to this that there is a God who wants the best for you, and he will protect you and give you what you ask for. And he will do the same for all deserving people.

Now what can possibly go wrong?

Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil. We can realize that something is good when it is pleasing, and in the same manner, we can realize that something is evil when the person is suffering. Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. Morality, therefore, is about realizing what is right (what we should do, good or evil) and what is wrong/bad (what we should not do, good or evil). Humans are not perfect, judge or criminal, for example; therefore, we should leave room for their ignorance as well when it comes to justice. Justice is the ability to realize what the judge should command. The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

What is evil other than a word? Like ignorance is an evil, but it doesn't always lead to suffering. Ignorance can be bliss.

Cultural norms whose violation is commonly thought to deserve punishment – here, “moral norms” - are present in all societies. And almost all people, except psychopaths, have a moral sense that motivates them to act unselfishly in common circumstances, to punish immoral actions by others, and experience feelings of shame and guilt when they perceive they have acted immorally. — Mark S

Are you asking if Epstein and Trump have a sense of social morality?

Plato gives us a story related to your question.

[/quote]The Ring of Gyges /ˈdʒaɪˌdʒiːz/ (Ancient Greek: Γύγου Δακτύλιος, Gúgou Daktúlios, Attic Greek pronunciation: [ˈɡyːˌɡoː dakˈtylios]) is a hypothetical magic ring mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2:359a–2:360d).[1] It grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Using the ring as an example, this section of the Republic considers whether a rational, intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice would nevertheless act justly.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Gyges does terrible things when he is invisible, and we are led to believe he is getting away with it, but in the end, things go bad for Gyges, and that brings an end to his wrongdoing.

It is like smoking and global warming. We know we should not be driving or flying with harmful fuels, and we should not smoke, but we live in a state of denial and rationalize what we are doing so we can do it even though we know it is bad.

The Greeks argued about whether something is good because the gods say it is good, or bad if the gods say it is bad, or do the gods say something is good or bad because it is good or bad? What are the consequences? Logos, reason the controlling force of the universe. What is the cause and effect? I believe morals are a matter of cause and effect.

I asked google for what Einstein said about imagination and got this AI response...

Albert Einstein famously said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." He also stated, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.". These quotes highlight the power of imagination in expanding understanding and fostering progress, surpassing the boundaries of what is already known.

Well-known inventors, including Einstein, found the answer to a problem in a dream.

Yes, some inventions and discoveries have been inspired by dreams. Several famous examples include Elias Howe's sewing machine, Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table, and Kekulé's benzene ring structure. These individuals reported experiencing a dream or dream-like state where the solution to a problem or the structure of something complex became clear.