I would suffer traumatic brain injury if the internet crashed. Really. One of the reasons my mind appears to still be functioning is that Google search, Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube, and a few thousand web pages provide me with mental content. It's always there 24/7. When I'm talking to relatives and others on the phone I can fact check; look up diseases and drug side effects; find recipes they (or I) forgot parts of; check etymology; get words and phrases translated; read scattered articles from NYT, Guardian, Boston Globe, LA Times, WSJ, and the Washington Post--and porn, of course: Architecture porn, dog porn, science porn, rock and roll porn, slum porn, porn porn... And I can shop for stuff--80% of which I could probably live without.

I would be a vastly better student today than I was in the 1960s. Well, maybe. I wasted a lot of time back then and there is nothing better than the Internet for massive time wastage. But still, there is such a wealth of good information (music, history, science, philosophy fora, etc.). — Bitter Crank

My X kept the family in very remote places where no one knew of the world outside their own backyard. I thought I would lose my mind or die of intellectual starvation. :lol: We were not a good match, he resented that I read books and one day piled them in the yard when I was gone. I got home before he burned them because fortunately, our 6-year-old daughter slowed him down. I would not want to continue living if I couldn't get on the internet. I need the folks in the forums very much!

But he had motorcycle boots and a black leather jacket and that looked really good to me when I was 18. :lol:

in third-rate sci-fi novels, when something happens to disrupt society, people promptly turn to looting, riot, vigilante reprisals for current, recent, or long-past slights; murder, and cannibalism.

Probably something like that. If you are plump and tender, you'd just better hope the Internet keeps functioning. — Bitter Crank

That is hilarious.

But personally, I can survive when I lose internet service as long as I can play games on the computer.
However, if more than a week passes, I do develop symptoms of a nervous breakdown.

I think that your reply captures the way in which sentience is an essential part of belief. It is not as if knowledge is some abstract aspect 'out there', because as human beings the way people search for meaning in the form of belief is an essential part of living existentially. — Jack Cummins

Perfect! I didn't read this before posting another reply. I needed the word "sentience" for the explanation I was trying to form.

I think that your point about destroying life is important and I could be tempted to start a thread about destruction, but won't do so for now, as there are several addressing the climate and environmental concerns.

So, I am thinking of how it connects to the nature of belief. What may be important is how there is often a consensus of belief maintained by those in power. Many people do not question authority and may be lulled into a security that the leaders know what they are doing. So, the issue may be about blind belief. — Jack Cummins

No that doesn't seem to explain what I see. My city has a board to discuss climate change and we have an organization that plants trees and our streets have been changed to better accommodate bicyclists, but the whole community is divided on all issues and some people are really angry about streets being changed to accommodate bicyclists. As some people are really angry about masks mandates.

When our strange weather first occurred and we had warm sunny days when we should not have had warm sunny days, I had no idea what was happening, only that nature was not right and this concerned me. While the people I knew were happy to have more warm sunny days. No alarm bells went off for them. I don't think our different reactions were about belief, but some of us enjoyed the nice weather and some of us were alarmed. Yes, the nice weather was nice, but nature being out of whack indicated something was wrong, to me.

My sister is as alarmed as I am, but she believes her granddaughters will have good lives because they are set to go to college and have high-paying careers. The future does not look that good for my family because I don't think any of them will go to college. Climate change is apt to hit low-income people much harder. That makes resolving problems more urgent for me. People with money will be safer than the poor. So my sister and I believe global warming is a serious problem, but her grandchildren will have a better chance of surviving. That changes the quality of our shared belief.

That is, differences in our anxiety levels, and differences in our circumstances can influence our beliefs, and if we feel like we must act on something or not. Like when I did start hearing about global warming, that was way in the future, right? I was telling the children in the family difficult times were coming and they needed to get educated so they could effectively deal with the problems that were to come. But it didn't seem urgent until serious forest fires began threatening us, and my thinking went from questioning the reality of global warming, and not caring too much because it was way into the future, to no longer questioning and realizing something has to be done now, not long off in the future. And this is like believing we need to wear masks and have covid shots or thinking that really doesn't matter. The covid threat is more serious when we know someone who has died. Until we begin experiencing the reality of something bad, we tend to not believe the threat is real. Like being young and invincible, bad things are what happen to other people, not me.

I love Dewey's suggestion. I remember the science building of Hollywood High, in LA California, and the message over the front door. It said Science is truth, and this bothered me because our understanding of sciences changes as we gain information.

Are there cultures that do not believe they can know truth? I am thinking of India and its acceptance of zero and perhaps indigenous people who live with life was it is without attempting to control nature? For the first time, I am questioning if the pursuit of science and truth has been a blessing or curse to us?

Zeus gave the first man the first woman and a box filled with miseries to slow mans' progress in discovering technology. He was afraid with the technology of fire, man would discover all other technologies and forget the gods. Here we are destroying the planet with our technology and increasing the mass of humans beyond what is sustainable. And it is not like this moment in time was completely unknown!. The ancients could see there would a time when our planet could no longer support the life on it. What may not have been seen is it would be our good intentions that would bring us to our doom.

Whatever, we need to figure out this puzzle and how to use math to be more realistic about what we can do and what is not sustainable. We have to stop blaming Trump or Biden for the crisis on our borders and realize what overpopulation has to do with the flood of violence and refugees. Around the world, violence is erupting, and refugees and trying to cross borders to save their lives and the lives of their children. Is there a culture that can manage this better?

I watched an explanation of why alternative energy is not going to save us. I was horrified to learn that some places in the US are burning trees to produce electricity. That is insane! Such grossly stupid decisions made by people at the top of industry and government have destroyed our faith in government and our leaders. I don't think this is what Jack had in mind when he opened this thread, but it is urgent that we question our immediate reality and if we are doomed to destroy life as we have known it in our modern civilizations? I don't think we can continue to believe future generations will have a good life.

Whatever content your post was, I feel that you were trying to offer me some advice.  I am not going to try to argue with it.  Whatever advice it was, I think it was out of care and good will, so I will say Thank you for that.

But for your comment on Trump, politics and democracy, I honestly have no knowledge at all on these matters, I am afraid.  So from your comment on these matters, I only notice that you are in the USA somewhere, and your interest in Philosophy is Politics and Democracy matters.

I have been to the USA a few times in the past about 20 year ago, and it was only for vacations to Florida state, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, Key West. I liked it at the time.

But I do believe that the USA has gone through many changes since then, it is now in a totally different situation from that time.  All I can say is, that I hope all goes well, and things will get better for you and your country. — Corvus

I am on kind of a campaign to spread Daniel Kahneman's explanation of thinking, but you appear to be Asian? Through this forum, I came across information about a fundamental difference in languages and how we process information. Perhaps Daniel Kahneman's research does not apply equally to all cultures. This would make a great research project for someone interested in such things.

You are lucky to not be as affected by Trump worshipping as we are in the US. Daniel Kahneman gives a good explanation of this phenomenon. What is happening in the US has everything to do with belief and blindly following the leaders to this belief system or that belief system. This was not always so and I think the education change in 1958 has social, economic, and political ramifications. We stopped educating for independent thinking and democratic principles. But there are also other serious changes! The common person is losing hope of owning a home and having the standard of living we all assumed was our right. We have become much more dependent on the government, and have diminished the importance of family. We have water shortages, and wildfires, and destructive weather events and it is impossible to deny things are not as we believed them to be 50 years ago. Our faith has been shattered and we are scared.

The post I was reading was not much different from the previous post to that, to me, so there was no point reading and rereading with attentive focus.   If you are a philosopher, then you not only have a rational mind of course, but also sharp intuition which you can use for fast scanning meaningless text for quick rejection, so that you are not wasting your valuable time. — Corvus

The point of reading with attentive focus is constructing the argument, which is totally different from telling someone his/her faults.

Sharp intuition? I don't think we should confuse a reaction with reasoning. They are not the same and Trump is not a God. Look we have a problem with what we believe about thinking. A reaction is not thinking. An intuitive thought should not be trusted until it is tested. What I am saying has serious political ramifications and this is essential to understanding democracy. If we are not pondering the thoughts of others and our own, we are not thinking. Here is an explanation of the difference between reacting and thinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

As Idea, yes, as unicorn, no. And so with seven, justice, God. I do not mean anything at all complicated here. It's been argued that forces are real but themselves neither material nor idea. I hold they're material, but would not care to argue it. — tim wood

Why seven, justice, God?

Seven is Heptad.

"The number seven occupies a critical place within the Dekad, where it acts as both a link and chasm. As a link between the first six and the last three terms, 1x2x3x5x6x7 equals 7x8x9x10 (equals 5040). As a chasm, with seven absent, 1x2x3x5x6 equals 8x9x10 (equals 720). Whether the value of seven is present or absent, its location serves as a pivot balancing ten. No other number or position within the Dekad does this."

"Whether the cosmos is represented as a musical scale in ancient times or as the modern sonic and electromagnetic spectrum, they both depict a universe based on vibration."

"Mythology, religion, science, mathematics, and art were once part of an integrated system of philosophy." Athena is associated with the number seven. My purpose is to express there is more than what appears. What started the vibration, what forms it into matter? I am not a materialist because without energy and forum there would be nothing. With math, we can see what is not visible to the eye.

Quotes are from "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" by Michael S Schneider.

With the material I hold the mental, ideas and feelings, to be altogether real. But real as they are, and not as they are not. — tim wood

:grin: I am not sure I follow your reasoning but it is intriguing. It is kind of like are unicorns real? Who does not know what a unicorn is? We would not mistake a unicorn for a whale. On some level the unicorn is real but I don't expect to see one except in pictures. If I enter a haunted house and have an eerie feeling that triggers my imagination, I may think I have experienced a ghost but I am still not sure ghosts exist.

"You must follow as told by Google, or the dictionaries says such as such, so it must be universal law and usage. Not accepting them is wrong. You are not following, and not accepting as told by Google or written in the dictionaries, therefore you are wrong."

I don't see any rational or logical argument from those statements. — Corvus

Well, that quote is not from me. This is what you said:

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning. — Corvus

That appears to be your judgment, and it is not arguing a point made in the former argument. However, based on what you said an argument may be futile? Google for sure is not the word of God. However, google is common knowledge and that means are there legitimate reasons for working with that information.

Democracy is rule by reason and a search for truth. When we are not in agreement with common knowledge it is our duty to argue why we do not agree with the common knowledge and do our best to persuade others to accept our better reasoning.

Stating that you quickly scanned something before making your judgment, destroys your credibility because that means you did think about what was said. You merely reacted. 90% of the time we are reacting to each other without making the effort of truly thinking about something. I think it is important we know the difference.

Your existence is independent of your thoughts. You can think you exist. You can think you don’t exist. Either way you exist. That’s what I meant. — khaled

Not if you are a ghost.

If symmetry or balance, or the lack of, then measurement. — tim wood

I am not sure of your meaning, but we are programmed to see symmetry and patterns as beautiful. I think many think of math with dread, but math lovers are having an emotional experience when they discover the patterns or struggle to discover them. We all have that tendency but it is more awake in some. Unfortunately, the way we educate children can be very damaging to our natural curiosity and enjoyment of math.

I think my spiritual experiences are the same natural response to stimuli, and oddly most of us feel better when we do good things for others. This comes with being a social animal.

Our emotions are not material and I think there is more to life than matter.

I can't make my meaning any plainer or clearer. Read the Stoics — 180 Proof

I am a hedonist. :grin: I believe in the pursuit of happiness as Cicero and Jefferson understood it.

Being reluctantly accepting of everything is painful.
Being neutrally accepting of everything is emotionally pointless.
Being cheerfully or gratefully accepting of everything is an end in itself. Inherently "good" in that it feels good, may be good for one's health, and may be contagious. Further, its easier to be accepting when your feeling gratitude. — Yohan

Would you please explain that to my granddaughter who appears to be making her life hell by her very sour outlook? It seems common for the young to be defensive and unaccepting of what an older person says. It seems many are trapped in pain, instead of realizing the miracle of being grateful. I think we need to learn how to be happy. In some cultures, this may be easier or than in other cultures? I think this is something worth looking into.

Being overly materialistic might be harmful? By materialistic I mean the opposite of animistic. Believing people, places, and things make us happy or unhappy, rather than realizing the importance of attitude.

How about data, information, and knowledge are various parts of a car, while wisdom is the one that steers the car? One actually has to practice driving to get good at it. Reading about cars, roads, and driving isn't enough — Yohan

I like that.

I am having a social problem. It is a lifelong social problem. I am no good at making small talk. I have no interest in engaging in small talk. When I was young, my mother was worried about my lack of desire to be popular. Years later I would rather be in the forum, than socializing with my neighbors. So I don't think wisdom comes naturally. I think we need to need to think about what we think to develop wisdom. I don't think most people think about what they think. And when I began reading philosophy, I was blown away by the questions philosophers have asked!

And I have known some very smart men. Men capable of earning a lot of money because of how smart they are but that doesn't make them wise. In contrast, is people who have traveled and experienced other cultures. Now those people I envy because of what they have learned of other cultures and life. I hobo can be more fun to talk with than some very smart guys.

If everybody had to be attacked by a lion to know lions are dangerous, we would have a world full of amputees, severely scarred people, not to mention very well-fed lions. With IQ, vicarious learning is possible, greatly increasing the odds of survival and, if you've mastered the art of learning from the bad experiences of others, a good life. With experience, you'll learn all right but, as people have told me n number of times, the hard way. — TheMadFool

Wow, maybe our wisdom is dependent on our teachers? I don't think in the west we pay much attention to wisdom? In the US we have much reliance on religion, but I don't think that equals wisdom. Some people get wisdom from the bible but not many.

I am glad I am smart enough to avoid lions and meth, but I am also old enough to know it seems almost impossible to pass on wisdom. Plenty of parents have pleaded with their children to learn from their parent's mistakes and don't repeat them. It would be super if people avoided drugs and stupid behaviors, as easily as they decide to avoid lions. What prevents people from being wise enough to learn from others?

From quickly scanning your reply, I cannot see anything even remotely resembling like proper philosophical arguments. They are just futile denial after denial without any points or supporting reasoning. — Corvus

What we see depends on our ability to see. In your gut, what is guiding what you can see and what you can not see?

Why did you take out your sword to cut someone to ribbons? In the long run, such behavior can lead to wars. This is really crazy when it is holy wars fought over something many of us do not believe is true because we think the god stories they believe are more fiction than truth. Sometimes the behavior is even more important than what people are fighting over.

Sometimes it seems as if the notion of individual perspectives and views is becoming lost. Of course, it is important to get accurate knowledge but, even then, each person has to think about it on a personal level. Even though there is so much information about everything, it is likely that each person thinks a little bit differently, putting ideas together, interpreting and forming conclusions. Also, the basis of beliefs and understanding is likely to be connected with personal experiences and life experiences play an important role in the modification of beliefs. I am sure that this includes attitudes and the whole mindset from which our ideas evolve. — Jack Cummins

It is not just our beliefs that matter, but also how we conduct ourselves and manage our arguments.

I always enjoy your threads and I don't think you have ever turned an argument into a personal attack.

Some interesting things have been said here but I am totally distracted by the personal attacks.

I come to the forum to have the pleasure of questioning our notions of truth, including my own, but when people are attacking each other and being defensive, it is not pleasant. They are not creating space for "individual perspectives and views" and I love the way you always do that! :heart:

It's important to determine what it is we're referring to when we speak of "truth." If the question is whether water is wet, I doubt that anyone adheres to a "point of view" which would induce them to claim it is not wet, and if a person would make such a claim I think we would be justified in saying that person is wrong. If a Nazi claims that Jews sacrifice Gentile children as part of their religious rituals and drink their blood, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that claim is a "possible truth that could be valid."

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism.
— Athena

Based on what he writes in his Republic, Plato might be described as the totalitarian's best friend. He more than anyone I know of championed government control of every aspect of our lives (for our own good, as every totalitarian claims). — Ciceronianus

Okay, what is a good way to classify our truths (a word) so we can label those truths in conversation as different kinds of truth? For example, the scientific reason for taking the covid vaccine is very different from believing a vaccine is a political matter an attempt of the government to control us for no other reason than to have control or win votes. If our language had a better way of classifying truths than "nonsense" or "truth" might it be possible for us to be more rational?

[quote=I like sushi[/quote] Your post really got me to thinking. How would that argument be different in the east? Science versus conspiracy theory?

I did not expect this to come up but now I see a linguistic aspect of our arguments. And the Arab Muslim people can be extremely argumentative. I had joined one of their forums and was blown away by how intense their arguing was and this has to be related to our words and notions of truth and perhaps notions of what is manly?

↪Athena If you mean people in the East don't care as much about material wealth and such you're dead wrong. I'd say more so. There is generally a big difference between poor and rich and this is probably a big cause.

In terms of language, there is evidence that people who speak western languages are not as likely to pay attention to details when shown a picture of a fish tank. They see a fish tank, whilst if you ask someone from China/Vietnam they will list the items in the fish tank rather than view it as a just a fish tank.

Note: This study was done on adults not children. It may have something to do with education but language is probably tied in there somewhere.

If you recall I've mentioned before that motherese is different for different languages. Notably Korean, where children are taught to focus on prepositions rather than objects. The effect of this is negligible beyond the age of 4-5 yrs. Prior to that point Korean children will generally perform better at special tasks/puzzles where other children will perform better at category problems. — I like sushi

I understand being materialistic as believing all things are matter. As opposed to believing in the gods or animism. It would be the western focus on nouns.

I would like to know more about the cultural differences you mentioned. If I were younger and had money, I would go the east and do my best to absorb the cultural difference. Thank you for sharing.

I do not know for sure but I think the west is more materialist than the east because of language differences? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

School of hard knocks, not everyone wants to go there. — TheMadFool

I am not sure what you mean by that. My mother thought children were naturally wise and she influenced me to value wisdom. I think that my choice to have wisdom lead to experiencing much adversity? Kind of like a Native American proverb I once heard of wanting specific characteristics and getting the life lessons that strengthen them.

I think memory is important to intelligence and I never had a good memory! It took me forever to memorize the alphabet, days of the week, months of year, etc. and I have never memorized the times' table despite making a lot of effort to do so. Because math is so useful in knowing our world and having good logic, I greatly regret I seem to be no more capable of understanding math than I am capable of flying.

Intelligence and wisdom are two different ways of being smart. The way I've heard them being described is like this, if you feel wet drops on your arm intelligence tells you its raining and wisdom tells you to go inside
— HardWorker
This suggests that every person that goes inside when it starts raining is wise.
An obviously false conjecture.
I will now assume that your definition.
So change the definition.
I honestly don't understand either so I will try to prove you wrong but I can't add anything thing else. — I love Chom-choms

I want to jump in because I think,I love Cham-choms, is correct. I had a friend with a low IQ who had the smarts of an animal (I envied him for this) and wisdom. It was like he had the clarity of mind that Yohan mentioned. Some of us have so much chatter going on in our heads, we are not really present and do not see the obvious.

Refine data so that makes sense? = information
Organize information into a comprehensive map of reality= knowledge
When enough diverse knowledge is obtained, the opposites of perspectives cancel out resulting in emptiness of opposition, and one obtains poised equilibrium resulting in behavior that is in Buddhism called the 'middle way' and in Christianity 'straight and narrow' = wisdom? — Yohan

The first part of the transformation of data to information and knowledge makes sense to me, but the last phase does not make sense to me. It sure does not happen naturally.

If you ask me, a high IQ eliminates the need for experience and vice versa. Of course, we would be better off having the best of both worlds but if given a choice, I'd opt for IQ instead of experience: as Yohan put it in a thread on life advice which has been deleted, "learn from other's nistakes". — TheMadFool

Well, when it comes to a high IQ I will never achieve that and I have known people with a lower IQ than mine who are pretty wise.

Data→Information→Knowledge→WisdomData→Information→Knowledge→Wisdom
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

What do the arrows represent? Anyone? — TheMadFool

No progress can be made without thinking and experience is essential to get from knowledge to wisdom.
A high IQ and book learning doesn't equal wisdom. We need the experience to understand the meaning of all that knowledge.

Zeus was afraid once man had the technology of fire he would discover all other technologies and then forget the gods. I think that is technology without wisdom.

I think it very likely that the Founders of our Great Republic, and most of the citizens of ancient Athens, including Solon and Pericles, Plato and Aristotle (while he was there), and maybe even Demosthenes, demagogue though he was, would disagree with the claim that there are "many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view."

But if there are many possible truths which could be valid, who can say? No doubt the Nazis acted consistent with the truth according to their own view of truth. — Ciceronianus

An interesting and important question, I have a very old logic book that explains we can never know enough to believe we know what we know without a doubt. I think there are some things we can be more sure of than others. I think we can agree water is wet. However, we may not agree on what is the best news program.

The Greeks begin with many gods who argued until they had an agreement on the best reasoning. This led to the philosophers' notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe that not even the gods could violate. If there were only one truth, there would be no point in having a democracy. A ruler could know the truth and rule much more efficiently than when a bunch of people get involved with the decision-making.

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism. Pericles' funeral speech favors individual differences and shared responsibility.

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

My set of old grade school textbooks seems to copy Pericles' speech when listing the characteristics of democracy. In the US we are having a cultural conflict between authoritarianism and liberalism, independence as opposed to dependence; with our values so twisted into knots, we seem to be reactionary instead of rational. But hey, when my phone is giving me a bad time, it is hard to not fix it with a hammer. :grimace:

This the trap that language sets for us all, that all of us fall into even four times before breakfast. Of course you did not mean exactly what you exactly said, but usually folks understand. The trouble arises when they don't, or happen to be suffering from translation fatigue. An occupational hazard for parents, mothers in particular with their sons. — tim wood

Oh my goodness YES! And people can get so UPSET because someone said the wrong thing! In my later years when I have the luxury of giving a thought my complete focus, and a lot of experience, I can occasionally be thrilled by how well I said something. :lol: I know this is unusual but I have spent much of my life feeling misunderstood. Come to think of it, I am not sure why I am complaining so much about computers. It can be just as difficult dealing with humans as it is to deal with a computer, but I have a preference for humans, even though that may be irrational. But not all humans. :lol: There are some humans I go out of my way to avoid.

So far as spellcheck goes, it's just an imperfect tool; one still has to proofread. I proofread my writing here, and still find errors after I post, which I then edit. — tim wood

Years ago when I excitedly plugged into the internet, I decided computers are far from smart! We need human beings we can call because they can resolve our problems in ways the computer can not. Whenever I have the choice of doing business with a company that answers the phone with a human being, instead of a computerized program, I choose the human being.

When people started using answering machines and phone trees, there was the option to wait until a human being picked up the phone. We have lost that choice, and unless my life depends on completing a communication, the people I am calling loose my business. I will also stand in the long checkout line instead of the self-check line because I rather share this world with humans than with machines. Have you seen the movie Passengers?

Perhaps your spell check is on to something - when it comes to this world, there may be only one truth that is undifferentiable from any other such that when we believe in truth about "our world" we are of necessity believing "the truth" about the Great Fact. — Ennui Elucidator

I do not think that is so. Each of us has a different experience of reality. So when I told my son to be careful because what he was about to pick up was heavy, he lifted the object and said it was not heavy for him. I love that acceptance of us having different truths. His statement acknowledged the object was heavy for me.

The other extreme is the person who appears to believe he knows everything that is important to know when in truth he knows only his own limited experience of life, and from there he judges everyone else. Believing there is one truth is problematic.

All rescued by noting that there is "true" and "truth." True the particular, and truth the generalization. And all that can be said of truth is just that it is a generalization, abstract, and thus itself empty, referring back to the particular, which is itself unique to its own case. But Aristotle covered this in opposing to the either-or, his neither-nor.

As to many possible truths, the qualification of different POVs essential, leaving truth untouched, but the several trues in question, the true then contingent on the trueness of the particular POV, in consideration of which it may be altogether untrue. — tim wood

That was some pretty fancy step dancing. I love "True the particular, and truth the generalization." That is much better than "the truth". I think culturally we need to work on your understanding so it is a shared understanding. But can we get there with the rules spell check follows? It is not just with the word truth, but commonly generalized meanings are missed by spell check. So if we write of government it wants us to speak of the particular, the government, the industry, etc.

You're evading the question. You said, all that matters to goodness is loyalty and hence my question about a band of genocidal maniacs people who are loyal, let's even say deeply loyal to each other and whether they qualify to be counted among the ranks of, say, the Buddha or Jesus? — TheMadFool

I am quite sure I did not say "all that matters to goodness is loyalty". Because I did not list all the things that are important to goodness, it is understandable how you could interpret what I said to mean that. I said what I said to open the discussion. I think your mention of Buddha and Jesus opens it further. I do not believe any other species contemplates those men and what they said.

The question is if we need morals and ethics and animals do not? All social animals depend on each other for survival so they need a mechanism for getting along. They just don't label things and talk about them. As far as we know they do not imagine another reality and talk about people who talk about a different reality. Would I be a better person if I believed life on earth is only an illusion and there is a better life waiting for me if I qualify?

I am not sure what you think is good about Jesus or Buddha? The story of Buddha is he darn near starved to death because he was caught up in a movement of self-torture and deprivation. A nutty idea. Not any better than being a hermit monk. Give me a scientist or a teacher with practical knowledge. I am questioning the value of morality that may have nothing to do with our survival. On the other hand, understanding morals as a matter of cause and effect can lead to good government and the advancement of human potential.

I have been thinking about how I was encouraged to use the expression, 'I believe' on some academic courses as an ownership of ideas? I am wondering about the nature of 'belief', and what that means in terms of personal construction of meaning and the wider scope of meaning? Does " belief' make any sense at all beyond the scope of personal meanings, and how can the idea of belief be seen in the wider scope of philosophy, especially in relation to objective and subjective aspects of thinking? — Jack Cummins

I believe starting a thought with "I believe" is inviting an argument and very good manners. It is friendlier than communicating as though we do not doubt ourselves, and sort of like Socrates, who insisted he knew nothing, which is the beginning of wisdom.

We all check if a thought is true or not by checking with our bodies. Instead of saying "I believe" we could also say "that feels right" because we rely on our bodies to know truth, or right from wrong unless we are intentionally using the scientific method to know truth.

Interesting spell check insists I should say "the truth" as though there can be only one truth. Have we totally lost sight that we can have different truths and they can be valid from our point of view? I am starting a thread to question what spell is doing to the way we think.

So, a group of genocidal maniacs who are loyal to each other are good? Why the hell then are they put on trial and sometimes sent to the gallows?

Something's off. You need to rethink your idea of good & bad. Looks like it might get really interesting very fast. — TheMadFool

Not stealing because it could lead to going to jail, is not a very high standard of morality. There are many legal ways to take advantage of people. And calling a band of thieves genocidal maniacs is a bit hyperbolic don't you think?

This doesn't make sense. God is a threat to the devil. So, is God bad? A gang of thieves can trust each other, are they good? — TheMadFool

Yes, loyalty to our group is good. Socrates would have us expand our consciousness so our group includes others and the Athenian Oath was loyalty and duty to all Athenians. Even Hebrews had group loyalty and those outside their group were not treated the same. Just about everyone had slaves with the rule that those outside the group could be made slaves, but not those inside the group.

Religion tended to make one's group much larger than we would naturally understand our group. Now that does separate us from animals, who can not imagine such large groups. Because we do think of ourselves as members of very large groups, we do have some problems. Do I have to feed a homeless person who most certainly is not in my social group?

There is not a big difference between human and animal moral behavior. Our wiring for that is the same as for all social animals. The only thing that sets us apart from the animals is language and the ability to label our behavior and therefore think about it. Desmond Morris was a zoologist and wrote several books explaining animal and human behavior as the same. His best-known book may be "The Naked Ape". Later Michael Shermer wrote "The Science of Good & Evil".

I am quoting from Michael S. Schneider's book "A Beginner's Guide to the Universe". This is an advanced understanding of the trinity. It is about the trinity and the enneagram. The enneagram is made by overlapping three triangles so that they make a star inside a circle. It relates to Egyptian gods and the flooding cycles.

The inner lines of the enneagram show us how different parts of the year have inner connections. For example, perhaps you initiate an action on February 10. Taking action is like planting a seed that develops slowly, eventually producing flower and fruit in their seasons. Every process needs time to germinate and transform in its unique sequence. Its outer order around the circle based on the Triad shows us the event's familiar sequence in sidereal time. But the inner lines based on the Heptad show us how our actions ripple and weave across the circle of the year in harmonic time. Lines from point one, February 10 tell us that our action will have ramifications on June 10 and October 9. This system may seem farfetched, but it works as an agricultural calendar whose Triadic structure of seed (January 1) flower (May 1), and fruit (August 29) indicate proper times for sowing, tending, and harvesting. The Heptad's inner lines show the necessary relations between them. In this structure of four months each- Ahmet, season of inundation and sowing; Pert, season of growth; and Shemu, season of harvest and inundation. — Micheal S. Schneider

Christians adopted the enneagram for explaining religious emotions. The Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Holy_Spirit

Que? I have read what you wrote. And I explained that what you wrote was a called a no true scotssman fallacy. And yes, there absolutely is Christianity without clarity. If there is something emphatically unclear it is religion, even by its own lights. The Islaamic theologican an philosopher Al Ghazali has written most interesting things about fate despite rational unclarity. — Tobias

What a wonderful to start the day, a good cup of coffee and a good argument. :grin: What you said may be true but it stretches my imagination to think there could be a Christian group that does not think acts of charity are essential to being Christian. But a person who does not believe Jesus is a savior can not be a Christian, right? Maybe that is a better analogy? I really do not believe there can be a democracy without reasoning, however, I can totally believe people who do not reason can believe they have a democracy. This might be a good time to ask what are the characteristics of democracy and question how many of them can be missing before the democracy is no longer a democracy?

And then, the analogy is shoddy as well. Why would clairty and religion have anything to do with democracy and reason? You just proclaim something but do not argue your point.

Because, when we do not have our facts right, we get bad results. It is very important that we have our facts right. Following Trump and ignoring the science of ending a pandemic has very bad consequences. Committing acts of war has very bad consequences and it is immoral to do so if it can be prevented.

Wut? And they forgot to call me when the gods started to discuss under the veil of ignorance?

Well, you were not born yet. :lol: Actually you do have a seat at the table and that is exactly what democracy is about. The Athenians concluded logos is the controlling force of the universe and even the gods are limited by logos. That means it is important to discover logos (cause and effect) and not so important to know the gods or argue god's truth. To be a good citizen you should know Homer's stories, and that is like learning good manners, but what really matters is understanding how the universe works. Welcome to science and democracy.

The US did not prepare everyone for democracy. In fact the US supported ruthless dictatorships in South America.

Didn't that happened after 1958? When the US began preparing for the Military-Industrial Complex and dropped education for good moral judgment and citizenship. I would not have an argument if I had not studied the history of education and learned of the German difference. What is your source of information? I will not deny that the US has used gunboat diplomacy, but that was not wars approved by congress. Athens did the same thing the US has done after the Prussian war and Sparta kicked their butt. This could derail the thread so I don't want to explain that but both democracies were around 200 years before thinking their shit didn't stink and it was their destiny to rule.

Yes and not with 'rule by reason'.

Logos is the controlling force of the universe. We either understand it correctly and get good results, or we do not and get bad results. Democracy is not about a God and being His favorite people. It is understanding morals, how the universe works, and good manners. It is about right reason.

From the Democracy Series and among the characteristics of democracy is "the search for truth"
— Athena

Great, by what political philosopher have those been composed? The search for truth also takes place in non democratic countries. In face the scientific revolution preceded democracy.

First point- we had education for democracy because only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and is liberty possible. That is social control by culture, not a polices state as we have now. It was the educators who defined and taught good character, independent thinking, and democratic principles. What they taught was based on Greek and Roman classics because that literacy is essential to our democracy. That education was dependent on literature, reading more than one book (the bible) to understand our democracy.

Then we have Cicero “God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Before education for technology, we were educated for liberty and justice and a democratic way of life.
— Athena

By whom? By the Romans? They ended up revering an emperor as God. You might be right there is all things wrong with current education, but your reasoning is incomprehensible. Perhaps caused by this shoddy education system I am thinking. You link epochs and ideas to each other without any rhyme or reason.

You are asking excellent questions and this may result in me completing a textbook for grade schools because you are helping me understand the questions that need to be answered.

Yes, my reasoning is incomprehensible because there is such a HUGE lack of information! You might see a running thread in what I am saying. It begins with understanding logos is the controlling force of the universe, and from there includes mention of what Greek and Roman classics have to do with understanding not only democracy but science as well. A liberal education is about those classics, math (to learn how to think), and science. Thinking education for technology is better, is believing a lie passed on by those who would rule over us and have been educating our young to be products for industry in a nation controlled by them. Effectively we have returned to a Dark Age, because we lost the knowledge of the Enlightenment.

Yes, all the more proof that Christianity is not related to democracy. The Prussian state was a militaristic 'obrigkeitsstaat', an perhaps the US has become more militaristic. I do not really know though.

You are getting it! :grin: I wish I had a bag of gold coins to give you for being the best at comprehending what I am saying. Even if all our weapons were thrown in the sea, we would be living under military order, not the democratic order we had. And this is directly related to reactionary politics and the dysfunction in Congress, the violence on our streets, the tightening of our liberty and strengthening police state, which has gotten frighteningly bad since 911, and Trump, our Hitler for the very same reasons Germany loved Hitler.

Understand, this destruction of our liberty and democracy is the result of adopting the German models of bureaucracy and education. The bureaucrat model is Prussian military order applied to citizens and shifts power and authority from the individual to the state. This frustrated the hell out of Trump, and our changed reality should concern all of us, but in over 10 years on the internet, I have not anyone who wants to think about the change in bureaucratic order and what the change in education has to do with that. Unfortunately, we are no longer the democracy we defended and Christianity is a huge part of the problem. Christians can either support liberty or authoritarianism. Which they support depends on their education. Democracy is about logos, not a God and a kingdom, and there is no hope for us if we don't get this right.

Your argument seems to run like this: triangles are important in philosophy. triangles are important in christianity, therefore Christianity is based on philosophy, but that is simply an invalid argument.

Yes, Christianity is based on philosophy. "In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1 There is the important trinity. "The word" is also "logos" but the word is our word for logos and a lot is lost in the translation. Unfortunately, that philosophy was tied to Judaism and eastern demonology and spun out as a religion of miracles. That went far off the path of Greek philosophy.

Most stools have four legs. I also like the number three and indeed in Islam the trinity is not accepted, but whether it is more or less reasonable to do so is up for grabs. The thread of argument that seems interesting in your ramblings is the following: The Christian metaphor of the trinity is a worthwhile heuristic device because it allows us to conceive of power as an interplay of forces without having to conceive of some centroifugal point. The number three holds value in argumentation because of how our minds work. That is all well and good. It is interesting and should be further worked out, but get rid of all the other bollocks, such as politics, democracy, justice and the military industrial complex.

Correct the trinity is not accepted in Islam. As I explained, the Romans did not accept it either, resulting in Christians killing each other in a fight about the trinity being three gods or one. For the Romans to accept the trinity of God it was essential to create a Roman vocabulary to translate the Greek concept. This did not happen in Arab territory so they were stuck with the notion that the trinity is 3 gods, not 1 and therefore, Christianity was in error. The Arab community was familiar with Judaism and Christianity and Mohammed simply correct the Christian error and Isam holds that Jesus is a prophet, not a god. Your argument seems to demonstrate the problem people had with the trinity.

"The Christian metaphor of the trinity is a worthwhile heuristic device because it allows us to conceive of power as an interplay of forces without having to conceive of some centroifugal point." Beautiful! Quantum physics and logos! Can you change your mind a little and think of the trinity as universal law instead of a metaphor? I think you have missed the power of 3. That is a real law of physics, not a metaphor. I suppose you could have a stool with 4, 5, or 6 legs, but you can not have a stool with one unsupported leg or 2 legs. Physically that just does not work. Now contemplate, instead of having a binary conscious, your consciousness was of the trinity in all things, not just god, but stools and a balanced government. What if you thought with the power of 3? Executive, legislative, and the judgment of if this both are within the law of the constitution. These are like the legs of a stool. The form give strength and balance. See? it is not just the number but form as well.

What I said is the US demobilized after wars, until Eisenhower and the Korean war. That is not a false statement.
— Athena
That might be true or not but that was not a statement, but an argument in support of your statement that US democracy could not go to war. That statement is false.

? Gunboat diplomacy is not a declared war. I don't think I ended a statement with the US could not go to war. The US could not go to war without the permission of congress. So we called Vietnam a military action instead of war. Then we change things to give the President greater war powers, and that lacks the wisdom of our forefathers, who intensionally made it hard for the US to go to war, so what followed 911 could not happen!!!! Excuse me, but I feel passionate about this! Our forefathers strongly opposed supporting Britain and paying taxes so Britain could colonize the world. Our constitution was designed to prevent the US from doing what Britain was doing. What some people still understand is the agreement was to not spend our money on military expenses above the minimal cost of defense and when we entered WWI and WWII it took a year to mobilize for those wars. Had we been under attack, we would not have had a good defense because we did not live for war as we do now.

Sure I know and sure I know they like triangles, but that notion was known in political philosophy before the US founding fathers. It always baffles me how much US citizens revere a club of land owners who had to bash out a constitution. They did a fine job but were by no means demi-gos, just people. People are inspired by ideas current at the time. The notions llike limited government and division of the political in three branches have been around since John Locke. Add tot hat that US democracy is a flawed form of democracy. The reason for that has nothing to do with triangles or reason. but with power politics between the populous states focused on trade and the less populous ones focusing on agriculture.

I am going to cry. Of course, the governing trinity was known long before the US. I am not understanding why you think that point needs to be argued? Before Locke there was Cicero and before Cicero was Greek philosophy. Cicero studied in Athens and that brings us to number and form and universal law. I would love to argue further the power of the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Executive, legislature, and judges, as the power of trinities, but I have to run.

Seems to me an early commercial for George Washington's rule.... The fact that images of God or Gods are used says nothing. about the republic being founded on reason. Founded on mysticism is more like it.

Of course, if you know nothing about the gods and our forefather's relationship to them, you do not understanding the meanings. Your judgment should not be based on what you do not know.

It is one of the hallmarks of a bet that its outcome is entirely dependent on the outcome of another event, the one you're betting on. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, but you can improve your chances if you study the riders and the horses before the bet, right? Then the competition can be who is the best at reading the facts and picking the winner. Have I understood correctly?