Linguistically empathy implies a lack of differentiation between the two subjects whereas sympathy or compassion implies a retention of the differentiation between the two subjects. — Leontiskos

I love linguistics and learning the origin of words.

What is Empathy? The origin of the word empathy dates back to the 1880s, when German psychologist Theodore Lipps coined the term “einfuhlung” (literally, “in-feeling”) to describe the emotional appreciation of another's feelings. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5571783/#:~:text=What%20is%20Empathy%3F,emotional%20appreciation%20of%20another's%20feelings.

The word has Greek roots

Origin
em and pathos

The prefix "em-" in words like "embolden" or "embrace" comes from the Latin prefix "in-" (meaning "in" or "into"), which is then assimilated to "em-" before labial consonants like "b" or "p", according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. So, "em-" itself isn't a root word, but rather a variant of "en-" used in specific contexts.

"Pathos" itself comes from the Greek word meaning "suffering" or "feeling."

I think we can have sympathy for another without having empathy, because we can think something is bad without feeling the pain.

Like homelessness- I think everyone can think that being homeless is undesirable, but having the experience of being homeless triggers many thoughts that come with feelings. Fear, fatigue, low self-esteem, and powerlessness. That is a little more than the inconvenience and discomfort of not having a home.

I am raising this area of debate with a view to thinking about the nature of compassion. The author of the article also raises the question, 'Does Empathy Always Lead to Sympathy? I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? Is it leading to moral indifference and based on the philosophy of the objective idea of the importance of 'emotional detachment as an ethical ideal? What do you think about the ideas of sympathy, empathy and its relevance for life?. — Jack Cummins

Before the Internet, I corresponded with prisoners. Prisoners wanting letters could put their name and address in a motorcycle magazine. So this one guy writes to me...

"You may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad untile you eat it."

And remember Spock in Star Trek. Spock was brought back to life, and Doc asked him what it was like to be dead. Spock replies by asking him if he has ever been dead. Doc answers that he was never dead, so Spock tells him that he has nothing to reference to. In other words, the only way to know an experience is to have that experience.

When I studied gerontology at the local university, I thought I knew about growing old. :lol: All that book learning did not prepare me for the experience of being old, and there is no indication that our doctors understand the meaning of struggling with pain and tiredness and unpleasant physical changes. They know the words and dictionary definitions, but not the experience.

All that is different from question about

I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? — Jack Cummins

That is more a psychological matter than philosophical. Number one, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE! For our own self-defense, we have to shut down because it is way too much to engage with everyone on a personal basis every day of the week. We can not be intimate with everyone in our lives and hold most people as personally distant as we can, so the checkout clerk is part of the store, not part of our lives. This is way more mechanical than family relationships. We stand on a crowded elevator with strangers we ignore. If we do not learn to tune people out, we burn out. This is especially so for professionals in caregiving positions. For example, I can not work in a nursing home because I can't handle all that pain. I gave up a volunteer job when I realized there was nothing I could do for homeless mothers needing shelter. Even rescue dogs need to find living people. The need is so strong for dogs, the handlers will intentionally give the dog a living person to find.

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world: — AmadeusD

I think if you want me to read what you say, you'd better say it in a way that makes me want to read it.

Interesting. It was Nietzsche and Sartre who inspired me to explore philosophy more deeply. I was immersed in post-modernity at university given my age and areas of study. The humanities in the 90s were flooded with these ideas. — Jeremy Murray

And look at us today. I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. It appears to me that we have pretty much replaced the Greek philosophers with German philosophers.

for sure, it seems elitist, to argue that some people are better equipped to make moral decisions for others. — Jeremy Murray

Why is that elitist? For sure, someone who has been through med school will be a better doctor than someone who doesn't even know the anatomy of our bodies.

I think life experience makes some people better at determining moral behavior than others. If the most important people in someone's life are drug-dealing gang members, this person's moral judgement will not be the same as mainstream society's moral judgement.

Science makes some people better at determining the moral care for the planet, and also can make a person better at judging human morality.

Do you agree that means returning to education for good moral judgment and ending leaving moral training to the Chruch?

I keep harping on this because our present reality seems to prove the Bible right about the end of times. We are technologically smart but not wise. Bad decisions have gotten us here, and this is not the first time people have believed they were living through the end of time. We have some choices: ignorance and immorality, or education and using reason to make moral decisions.

Bottom line, I think we need to talk about morality and why education is essential to our liberty. I have been harping about this for many years. Forums may stress our rights, but our rights require a sense of responsibility, and young people do not seem to want responsibility, only rights. We need to grow up and hopefully grow in wisdom.

In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
Wolfy48 — Wolfy48

I very strongly appreciate the importance of your question. Making something like eating your neighbor's children taboo may be preferable to laws. For those of us who value liberty, we may prefer taboos over laws because a taboo prevents undesirable actions better than laws.

An authority on this is Edward T Hall

Edward T. Hall's concept of "cultural taboos" refers to the unspoken rules, norms, and behaviors that are considered unacceptable or forbidden within a particular culture. These taboos often operate below the level of conscious awareness, shaping our interactions and understanding of social situations. Hall's work highlights how these taboos can create misunderstandings and challenges in intercultural communication. https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+t+hall+taboos&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=edward+t+hall&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgkIARBFGDkYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEC4YgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyDQgHEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxOTUwNmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QUEZpQ7pA-1Jg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If a genie granted me a wish, I would wish everyone had a good understanding of taboos, why they are important and how they work.

Taboos are social prohibitions or avoidances, often with religious or cultural origins, that prevent individuals from engaging in certain actions or behaviors considered harmful or offensive. They function to maintain social order, protect individuals and groups, and reinforce group identity and cohesion.
Elaboration:
Social Control:
.
Taboos help regulate behavior by setting boundaries on acceptable actions and expressions.
Protection:
.
Taboos can protect individuals from dangerous or undesirable situations, either physical or emotional. For example, a taboo against eating certain foods could protect a community from food poisoning. more at https://www.google.com/search?q=the+function+of+a+taboo&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQkzMDk1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdBF3mbb-qQD&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But freedom of speech and freedom of expression? — Wolfy48

What you are saying is like starting a fire in August and walking away.

I am a woman, and as such, I am strongly against media and games of violence and especially violence against women, such as the offensive games I am offered when I attempt to play solitary online, where females are chained to a wall and struggling to get loose. How is that not condoning the voyeuristic behavior and feeling, that some people have when imagining such an act, and what is to stop someone from taking this a step further when we have socially condoned what should be taboo.

On the other hand, I have read some awful stuff in history books, such as tortures and horrific ways of killing people that have been used in the past. :rofl: I was feeling very superior to a male friend who was enjoying a violent TV show, until I realized what I was reading in a history book was worse. I think it would be very wrong to sanitize history.

Now, back to the question, how can we have media with totally unacceptable behavior and not trigger some people to go from voyeurism to a real-life experience? Should we ignore that some mentally unstable people are triggered to act on taboo impulses?

In a class about personal power, I watched a big, tough biker break down in tears when he explained his violent past and how this is a socially motivated behavior because that is what big, bad bikers do. Today, thanks to our misguided freedom of speech, we have policemen who are no better than the criminals. We are teaching that this is what powerful men, manly men, sexy men do. It is how to be a good man and a good Nazi or biker, or soldier, or whatever. This is your wildfire and our social failure to keep the fire under control. That is a failed civilization because of the growing number of poorly socialized people.

Hey Athena - yes, education goes hand in hand with political freedom.

You can't truly have one of them without truly having the other.

If the things your are taught are controlled and censored, you don't really get an education for sake of your own mind, but instead get indoctrination to control your mind, and so no freedom. If you are not educated, you can't easily identify and sift through your choices, to make a truly free choice.
And if you are not free in the first place, you can't seek to learn the things you alone can identify need to be learned.

Freedom demands we learn more. Learning more demands that we free ourselves and build a freer, more self-determining, mind. — Fire Ologist

You said that so well. I wish schools had statues or at least a picture of the Statue of Liberty to keep the connection between learning and liberty alive. She holds a torch for the enlightenment that comes with learning, and in her other hand is a book.

However, today we also need a reminder of what good moral judgement has to do with liberty and justice. Education for technology is like Pandora's box. We have high school boys who can make bombs, but also who can not manage their emotional/social experience. And the sexual scene has pushed everything over the edge of insanity, with good Christians insisting they don't want anyone teaching "their children" morals, thinking only of their own children and not the thousands of young people who are also growing up in our schools. Children who need guidance because we were not born knowing good from evil (concepts), nor are we born with the thinking skills to have good judgment.

We must understand we can not

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. — Wolfy48

without preparing the young for this freedom.
That surely leads to appearing to prove the Christian notions of Satan and being born in sin and the evil nature of humans. We must replace such mythology with the science of human nature and the humanities to have good moral judgment and not superstition and anarchy leading to chaos and destruction.

I agree that education is good, and leads to better decisions, but that education should something that people are able to explore on their own to form their own opinions. If the education about the state is coming only from the state, that will bias people and will almost certainly result in an authoritarian state. If the state controls education, who has the education to control the state?

I just don't see the value in the point of "You are either taught to support what we want, or you are considered uneducated and silenced." Well, I do see the value if you're a dictator or a pervasive authoritarian state, but if you are standing for a liberal democracy, that really seems counter-intuituve. — Wolfy48

Oh please, no one is going to look for something they know nothing about. That is not possible. When is the last time you went into a store and bought the best thing a human being can have, given you don't even know it exists or is needed?

Ask people what the best virtues are. I would be surprised if many people named even one virtue. I think young people may not know what a virtue is, and you tell me they should explore this information on their own. It ain't going to happen until they know what virtues are and why they are important.

Can you name 10 characteristics of democracy? In my experience, asking people to do that results in them being very angry with me. I would not know the characteristics of democracy if I didn't have the grade school Democracy Series textbooks. I found these books in a bookstore because I knew we once taught our national values, and I looked for a book explaining them. :lol: That put me on a life path I was not expecting.

No, no the education I am talking about does not bias people. We used the Conceptual Method of education. Teachers were told not to pay too much attention to names and dates, but rather to focus on concepts. Under this system, the student may totally disagree with the teacher and get a good grade based on their understanding of the concept.

We taught children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. However, with education for technology, knowing the right answer has nothing to do with a concept, and it is the only way to get a high grade, because all answers are only right or wrong. And boy, does this education lead to belligerent people! And with Bush Jr.'s No Child Left Behind Act, teachers were preparing children to pass the test so their school wouldn't lose funding. That is what makes the US score very low on education when compared to the rest of the world. We replaced the Conceptual Method with the Behaviorist model.

The behaviorist model, or behavioral learning theory, suggests that learning occurs through interactions with the environment, primarily through conditioning (reinforcement and punishment). It emphasizes observable behaviors and external stimuli over internal mental processes. Key figures associated with this model include John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, and Ivan Pavlov. AI

For years, we have taught children as we train dogs. That justifies your concern. That is why I am always trying to talk about education! Teaching a child how to think is different from the Military Industrial Complex education we have had since 1958.

So you wish to silence the uneducated? That seems very... uhhhh.... bad? No offense but to me everyone should have a voice, not just those you deem "educated" — Wolfy48

I don't think I said the ignorant should be silenced. However, neither should ignorance be ignored.

"Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy" -- ↪Athena

Hm... I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech?

Please keep in mind, I argue for better education. That is how I argue for liberal democracy.
That goes with associating human ignorance with animals being unleashed from a zoo. At some point, Socrates explains our question should not be what is, but what should be. A liberal democracy coming out of the Enlightenment is a dream of what can be. We can not silence the ignorant, but we can encourage a remedy for ignorance, and we can work on manifesting a culture that is better than the one we have now.

I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy...

What did I say that speaks of suppressing those with a different point of view? My goodness, there is so much I don't know; it would be foolish for me to act as though I can judge all things, and I should have the power to force my will on others.

Tonight, I called my local TV station to object to one-sided reporting of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Excluding the opposite point of view at this time in our history threatens our freedom of speech. I have to call attention to this error from time to time, or our news station gets lazy and goes with the popular story and ignores the less available opposite side of the story. I must compliment our local news because in the past, they have put in the extra effort when I have objected to the exclusion of the other side.

As Obama said a couple of weeks ago, you and I have to do something if we want to keep the great country we inherited. Restricting our political activity to our duty to vote is not enough. If the masses are left ignorant, they will make bad decisions, and that can destroy the democracy with liberty that we inherited. Our local newspaper was called the Register Guard because back in the day, reporters thought it was their duty to keep us well informed, so we could make good decisions. That will not happen if we don't ask for it.

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible. — Fire Ologist

Ah, what is common sense? How does it become common?

How about a return to civics for high school students and health books that prepare first graders for civics in high school? Education for technology has manifested a nightmare for a nation that is supposed to stand for liberty and justice.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, say whatever they want, and express themselves however they want. — Wolfy48

:scream: I can not agree with that much freedom, for such freedom leads to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, it leads to a dictatorship and totaleran state. Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy.

Especially, freedom of expression is problematic because that can mean unacceptable acts of violence.

On the other hand, I have heard in India it is a given that when speaking of one thing, you speak of its opposite as well. If we also held this understanding, increased knowledge could get better results than what I see in the US today. Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose.

Only that there must are alternatives to capitalist, money-based economy and one of those needs to prevail before all that moral, logical, fair and democratic stuff can have any chance of survival. — Vera Mont

I am sorry, I do not agree. If people are to have good moral judgement, we must have education for good moral judgement as we once had. Giving people charity without expecting something from them is harmful. However, along with the education, we need Industry that uses the Deming model and that is totally different from the autocratic model.

Ancient Athens placed a strong emphasis on morality and its citizens' commitment to the well-being of the city-state. This included a belief in civic duty, the importance of moral virtues, and a focus on intellectual and cultural development. Athenians believed that their private needs were intertwined with the needs of the community, leading to a willingness to sacrifice and restrain their passions for the preservation of Athens. AI

We need to feel valuable and that we belong. I would focus on creating opportunities for that, as Roosevelt did.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, strongly believed that a good economy depends on morality.

The problem is not money. Spartar determined what people needed and it provided that. It had almost complete control over everyone. Money would have given them freedom to decide what they wanted and, more importantly, freedom to think and act for themselves.

Let me start off by saying that the republican censorship is nowhere near the amount of censorship the democratic party underwent in the last 12 years of being in power. However , with the extreme rise of political power that Elon Musk has as he now owns one of the biggest political platforms (X) as well as his very public support of Trump with glowing endorsements and a ton of money. I sense that this is the start of something dangerous, — Samlw

Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended, and we stopped doing this when we replaced an education based on the humanities with education for a technological society with unknown values. This, unfortunately, has led us to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, a dictatorship follows. Losing freedom of speech is just one step in preventing liberty.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

Adam Smith, the father of economics, was sure that morality is essential to a good economy. But we are not born knowing morality. It is something we must learn, and leaving moral training to the Chruch is a very bad idea! But that is what we have done. Now, good Christians are screaming they don't want anyone teaching their children morals. Oh really? And how about the boy across town whose parents encourage him to want guns and to use them? You know the student who kills teachers and other students, and the 23-year-old who commits mass murder to make his moral statement, and the copycats to follow.

Bottom line- Jefferson and Adam Smith were right. If we want liberty, we have to learn virtues and good moral judgment. Only then can we have liberty and government by reason, instead of authority above us trying to control things that are spinning out of control.

I will stand with my argument that a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I know about the Venus project. What is your point?

I revisited Kohlberg's stages of moral development recently. I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage.

Conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. They talk about "justice" and then burn cities and punish good Samaritans. They are for feminism, but refuse to define what a woman is. So, the left has no genuine moral beliefs; all their beliefs are only verbally espoused in order to try to win the approval of other leftists. — Brendan Golledge

Huh? There is no left or right, us or them division of the 6 different stages.

Kohlberg's theory outlines six stages of moral development, categorized into three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. These stages are: 1) Obedience and Punishment Orientation, 2) Self-Interest Orientation, 3) Interpersonal Accord and Conformity, 4) Authority and Social-Order Maintaining Orientation, 5) Social Contract Orientation, and 6) Universal Ethical Principles Orientation. AI

The 6th level is the highest, and we can trace that back to Athens, Greek philosophers, and the concept of logos. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech. Conservatives are more likely to be stuck at the first level of obedience and punishment because they tend to rely on the Bible and ignore science or the pursuit of happiness, which is the pursuit of knowledge and is essential to a democracy, you know, rule by reason.

Our liberty is defended by following the law, and if one is not in agreement with a man-made law, then the responsible thing to do is to change the law. This means arguing that the man-made law is not compatible with the universe. So, while the Bible can be used to defend slavery, we can determine through logic that a society is much healthier when everyone has liberty and justice.

I agree with you both. Love is the love of something and not of nothing. I believe that something is beauty. Beauty can be manifested in a man, a woman, or a Grecian urn. And if the beautiful is also good, then love is the love of the beautiful and good. My question is, what is the nature of the beautiful and good that is beloved? — GregW

Here is what AI has to say.....

In ancient Greek philosophy, "good" (agathos) and "beautiful" (kallos) were closely intertwined, often considered aspects of a single ideal called "Kalos Kagathos," meaning "beautiful and good". This ideal emphasized a balance of inner and outer excellence, encompassing both virtue and physical beauty.

This would also go with notions of good music. Here is what AI has to say...

Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed in the power of music to shape character, educate, and even influence societal well-being. They saw music as having ethical power, arguing that specific musical modes and styles could influence emotions, character, and even the development of good citizens.

I want to say this thinking is very dependent on words. Without a word for a concept, we can not think about the concept. Linguistic differences separated Rome and the Greeks, and some of us believe the Greek culture in areas like Athens was superior. So Kalos Kagathos is a mix of good and beauty.

Another way to look at this is through science, and what proportion has to do with recognizing beauty. Here is what AI has to say.....

Proportion, particularly when measured by the "golden ratio," is a concept that has been used to describe beauty across various fields, from art to architecture to even facial aesthetics. The Golden Ratio, approximately 1:1.618, is often seen as the most aesthetically pleasing proportion, and its application can be found in many works of art and design.

You are saying these are parts of love. But what is love as a whole? In what way is love to be distinguished from its parts? — GregW

Love is hormonal. This is what AI has to say.....

The term "love hormones" often refers to hormones involved in social bonding, emotional connection, and feelings of pleasure and attraction. Specifically, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin are key players in the experience of love and attraction.

We can stimulate the production of these hormones by doing kind things for others, nursing a baby, running on a path. Don't believe me? this is what AI says.....

Running, along with other forms of exercise, can significantly impact the release of hormones in the body, including those associated with feelings of pleasure, connection, and well-being. Specifically, running can boost endorphins, dopamine, and oxytocin, which contribute to the experience of the "runner's high" and overall mood enhancement.

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

Thank you. I believe you are correct. I think we have underestimated the importance of nurturing and the people who do the nurturing. This is what AI has to say...

Leaving a baby alone in a crib for extended periods, especially without interaction, can negatively impact their development and ability to form healthy attachments, potentially leading to emotional and behavioral issues. While it's natural for parents to need time for themselves and to adjust to a new routine, neglecting a baby's need for interaction and emotional connection can have detrimental consequences.

Indeed, I work at delaying it. I am still delighted to learn new things. My current book is "The British Are Coming: From Lexington to Princeton". I've heard American history since 7th grade, but now I'm finding the (new) gory details of the revolution from both British and American POVs fascinating. It took 78 years to get here, but I'm glad to have arrived. — BC

I am 78 too, and know what you mean about getting more meaning out of books than we once did.

They could fathom a universal basic income.
Everywhere it's been tried, the results were positive, even though most trials have been too small a sample to change a community. People don't sit around drinking beer: they learn things, try things, start things, provide services to others and make an effort to earn their neighbours' respect. They stay in school longer, commit fewer crimes and have fewer health problems. Every instance I know of that a larger-scale pilot was initiated, the next conservative administration cancelled it. — Vera Mont

Native Americans had a domestic economy and a belief system of caring for the earth. I don't think I know enough about economics to say more. However, believe systems are important.

When the land holds resources, should these resources be viewed as shared or private? I grew up in California, aware of gold mining towns becoming ghost towns. This is nuts! Gold brings money into the neighborhood, and this leads to the value of land rising, and stores and services moving in, and everything is going great until the resource is exhausted, and then everyone's investments in the community crashes, and people move away. Shouldn't the money of the first resource be set aside to invest in an industry that will replace the first source of income, protecting everyone's investments?

I like to think morals are a matter of cause and effect. As long as we think in terms of private ownership instead of shared ownership, we will have an immoral economy because everyone's investment is unprotected.

Greeks tried different economic forms, and I think an economy based on farming, seems to do better under private ownership. However, a gold mine should not be privately owned, nor water and other naturally given resources. Industry needs to be a shared endeavor. I am not sure but just thinking out loud.

Spell check doesn't like me speaking of "community crashes"- and wants that to be one crash. But I see the community as many private investments and all of them crashing in a ghost town.

Nobody ever said that the desire for the beautiful and the good makes the world go round. Of course, "love" requires an object. Free-floating objectless love is... what? — BC

That is an interesting observation about beauty. However, I think free-floating objectless love is enhanced by beauty. Like when I walk along the river on a sunny day, I can not help but be overwhelmed by a good feeling and feel gratitude for this experience. Beautiful, sacred places stir the feeling that all is well and manifest a feeling of joyfulness. That is not born out of desire but the opposite, appreciation of what is experienced.

"Everyone sees that love is a desire, and we know also that non-lovers desire the beautiful and good. Now in what way is the lover to be distinguished from the non-lover?" — GregW

I do not agree with that statement because I experience love as a given. Walking along the river on a beautiful sunny day can intensify that feeling of love. I feel loved simply because I feel love. I can totally relate to the Christian notion that God is love, even though I think the Biblical explanation of God. Satan and sin are messed up. Believing in a personal God has unpleasant consequences, necessitating deifying Jesus as a personal savior.

I don't know how it is for others, but when I was young, I was much more needy than I am now. I would expect a person's notion of love to change with age.

The conclusion here is that there are gradations of free will, of choice, from particular to absolute, depending on our preferences/values.

Is this a good analysis? — bert1

uh no not necessarily. someone can of course have reasons for choosing something that isn't their preference. — flannel jesus

I will say yes, there are degrees of free will. Some people have a lot of self-awareness and others have none. How much free will we have depends on how self aware we are. Also, the greater the degree of empathy, the greater our reasoning and therefore, our free will. In general the boarder our consciousness is, the greater our reasoning and the greater our reasoning is, the greater our free will.

I chose this because I think it is right, rather than I chose this because I feel a desire for it.

You’re not missing anything. Many consider moral foundations a half-baked theory. — praxis

What does that mean? I just posted Deming's points for making better products and creating a better work environment. It is not half-baked. During the Great Depression, he tried to get Industry in the US to use his model and our autocratic Industry refused his model, so Franklin Roosevelt set out to regulate Industry from the federal government level, increasing the autocracy of our democracy. While Deming's model increases democracy and makes it better. That is also better for families because it is more humane and works to improve everyone and everything.

Because the US rejected his model, he went to Japan after the war and taught his model to the Japaness who than proceeded to out compete us for world markets. Today when people talk about what kind of car to buy, they talk about Toyota and Subreu, not Ford of Crysiller. Our high-tech electronics make Japan great because they are the ones putting out the best products.

Using the Deming model is better for families than the autocratic model. If our schools prepared us for a democracy and our Industry used the democratic model, our Democracy could be great and could manifest the Enlightenment dream of a better life for everyone.

It wasn't about your view of the world. (I'm familiar with your history of good works and civic improvement.) But I did have a problem with
Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers.
— Athena — Vera Mont

But don't you see I am one of them! Don't you get how valuable we become when there are not enough people to do what needs to be done, but when there are more than enough people and they must compete against each other, then is when we feel pushed out and unneeded. Some of us are givers and excellent workers, but we are not intentionally competitive. Because we are not competitive, we are losers, and people look down on us and do not see our value. If others do not see our value, on what can we base a good opinion of ourselves? It is a downward spiral, and it can be next to impossible to get into a positive frame of mind. Life can become overwhelming, and that means being dysfunctional.

Jobs as we knew them are disappearing fast. A living wage for all is an impossibility already; in 15-20 years (always assuming this civilization keeps operating that long), gainful employment will be the norm for only about half the adult population. Very large adjustments must be made in that time to avoid collapse. Adjusting to a realistically envisioned future is not the direction in which I see America heading atm. — Vera Mont

We have agreement. I am horrified, even though Trump says we must have industry, when people speak of jobs, they are talking about a few good-paying jobs that require a college education, not employment for people who are not college minded. If we want everyone working, we must create simple jobs and make the work place a desirable place to be.

Our industry is based on the autocratic model, and that is very bad for our families and democracy and in general, our character. It creates inequality and authority over the people. If we want to make the US great we need Deming's model for Industry. Here are some of the points...

6. Institute Training on the Job: Provide on-the-job training to equip employees with the knowledge and skills they need to improve their work.
7. Institute Leadership: Focus on leadership, which encourages collaboration, understanding, and a coaching approach.
8. Drive Out Fear: Create a work environment where employees feel safe to share ideas and ask questions without fear of retribution.
9. Break Down Barriers Between Staff Areas: Eliminate departmental barriers and encourage cross-functional collaboration.
10. Eliminate Slogans, Exhortations, and Targets for the Workforce: Avoid using slogans and exhortations that can create a hostile environment.
11. Eliminate Numerical Quotas for the Workforce and Numerical Goals for Management: Avoid setting numerical quotas that can lead to poor quality.
12. Remove Barriers That Rob People of Pride of Workmanship: Eliminate barriers that prevent employees from taking pride in their work, such as inadequate tools or a lack of recognition.
13. Institute a Vigorous Program of Education and Self-Improvement: Encourage continuous learning and improvement through education and self-improvement programs.
14. Put Everybody in the Company to Work Accomplishing the Transformation: Make quality improvement everyone's responsibility. https://www.google.com/search?q=14+points+of+deming+in+quality+management&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=points+of+Deming+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgCEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCggBEAAYChgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAcQABjvBTIHCAgQABjvBTIKCAkQABiABBiiBNIBCjExNDYxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBXPu3B_Be_i6&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Oh, yes, the homeless people who "made the wrong choices'. They're a burden on society. The landlords who own a hundred thousand rental units as well as their own six or seven luxury residences are pillars of the community. — Vera Mont

Wait a minute-. I am not sure, but I think I see the world very differently from how you think I do. I have
always lived in poverty. I know poverty as a result of capitalism and sexism, and someone has to care for the children, the sick, and the elderly, and we women do that because it is the right thing to do. I have volunteered most of my life because I need to believe I am of value to society. At first, I had a husband who supported the family with money, and soon after the divorce, I qualified for disability. The idea of taking charity and not giving back is shameful to me. I feel fortunate that I have had good volunteer opportunities.

However, that is not how I judge everyone, because much of the time, I was working with people with more severe disabilities. For a while, I had a job preparing young, severely cognitively challenged people for jobs. That was so sad because they were hopeful and worked hard, but there are no jobs for them.

My attitude about accepting charity is from my grandmother's generation, when severely cognitively challenged people would get jobs, because of a community agreeing human dignity is important, and jobs were not so demanding! Roosevelt used government money to provide jobs, not charity. Social Security was based on age, not need, to protect the dignity of older people.

I have to run- and I hope we can continue this discussion. I could be wrong, but when it comes to morals, I think human dignity is a priority! When I stayed at home to raise my children, I thought having a paid job was a wonderful thing, and I looked forward to it. I volunteered and went to college, expecting to have a career. Whatever, I know a lot about poverty and the people living at this level, and also those living in prison. The underbelly of our great society.

Wouldn't a more equitable distribution of wealth be even more effective? And maybe enacting fair laws? — Vera Mont

That is a lovely question. Some members of society contribute more than others. I think that justifies differences in resources. This was not as much of a problem as it is today. Our cities and towns have a surplus of non-productive human consumers. What is fair?

If it stopped at times tables and metric conversion, passages from Hamlet or The Highwayman, I'd have no problem with it, either. It's the loyalty oaths, patriotic platitudes and reverence for the aristocracy (landed, business, military or clerical) that I find offensive. That's what makes political disagreement a moral issue; what puts political parties into the same category as churches. — Vera Mont

Are you saying literacy in the classics is a good thing?

Why do you object to loyalty oaths?

I was not sure what a patriotic platitude is, so I googled that term and got these examples...

Patriotic quotes
"This is your democracy. ...
"Where liberty is, there is my country." – ...
"True patriotism springs from a belief in the dignity of the individual, freedom and equality not only for Americans but for all people on earth." – ...
"Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better." –
More items...•Jun 19, 2024
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2024/06/19/patriotic-quotes-america-usa/74070993007/

What is the problem with those statements? I think some defining statements are necessary. It might be a good thing if all citizens agreed on these platitudes. Trump appears unaware of them, making me think his followers are also unaware of them. I don't think that is a good thing.

I think some people relate to political parties as they relate to foot ball teams, and that kind of a relationship is not equal to church membership because there is a lack of sense of responsibility. As a citizen and church member there should be a sense of responsibility and that is not so with foot ball.

I don't think anything is just good or bad. As I age, I appreciate the complexity of everything. Something may seem bad, but in relation to everything else, it can be good, or vice versa.

I am not against regimented education. Some things just have to be memorized, and when they are, that frees the mind for more complex thinking. I so wish I could spend more time with you, but I am in a rush to join friends at Cafe 60, and what you said is sooo good, I want to have time to work on a response. One reason my thinking is different is that it comes out of very old books, and I love it when someone engages me is a discussion of education and forces me to think about what I think. You have stirred many thoughts. Thank you

I think modern education has a way of disconnecting people from their intuition, and attempts to replace it with pure reason. Such people are, paradoxically, much easier to manipulate. Because reason has its limits too, and a clever mind can rationalize literally anything - something which the propagandist makes eager use of.

Even though the person themselves is disconnected from their intuition, the propagandist makes it their profession to understand, and often has a much better understanding of what makes their target audience tick than the audience itself. — Tzeentch

Oh yes, education for technology is disconnecting us from intuition. I learned in college that our personal experiences do not matter and our arguments need to be empirical. A large part of Fascism is the power of technology and opposed to the power of the individual. We are not only separated from God, but also ourselves and in our desperate aloneness, we need the crowd. Hail, Hitler is a wonderful feeling of belonging. We disrespect our leaders but love the power of a strong leader.

I love your bottom line and see a connection to feeling separate from God and ourselves. The independent thinker is a stronger person and does not need the approval of the crowd. We thought everyone to be independent thinkers and replace that with "group thinking".

More recent brain research is making us aware of what our emotions have to do with what we think.

The vast majority of political messaging is made to work people's emotions, though. That's not just Trump.

Worse still, with Trump it is very obvious, and thus limited in its effectiveness, whereas the messaging you ought to be really worried about is the stuff that is not obvious, and thus finds its way straight into their recipients' subconscious.

They become societal paradigms that are no longer questioned, no matter how defunct they might be. — Tzeentch

:chin: It is just Trump and the leaders of India and Brazil, and maybe Israel, because Israel is so much about Jewish versus everyone else. Hitler and the Nasi did a lot of surveys in the rural areas to find out what people were most angry about and what they feared most, then they rented large rooms and gave great speeches about how the Nasi party would take care of all these problems. They did this year-round and not just when an election is to happen. Fascism is built on fear and anger.

What other president of the US comes close to Trump in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

Your bottom line is perfect. I think we have a problem with that reality because of being overly enthusiastic about what technology can do for us and the denial of our limits. Also, when we turned to education for technology, we left moral training to the Church, and were pretty naive about understanding the importance of culture!

Eisenhower realized the dangers of this turn to technology when he warned us of the Military Industrial Complex, but I don't think he was aware of the importance of a liberal education when he asked Congress to replace our "domestic education" with education for technology. The 1958 National Defense Education Act was a reaction to Sputnik, and it had a 4 year limit. Instead of returning to our domestic education, we continued education for technology and a society with unknown values.

Countries could use psychoanalysis just like individuals may need it, because stuff in the subconscious is causing problems. Every culture has a limited consciousness, with some things being taboo. This subconscious is manifested and is causing problems. This is so obvious today with Trump cramming our history of slavery into our subconscious, making it illegal to talk about this taboo subject. The Whites have always had the power to suppress and control our consciousness. How much of a jump is it from hating people of one shade to hating all colored people, and this is a cornerstone of Fascism.

ago — Vera Mont

I love what you said about education. That is a liberal education, not education for technology. I think some schools are returning to that, but right now, it may be hard to get good books for a grade school liberal education.

Brain research resulting from improved technology for brain research may help turn the tide back to liberal education. Once the brain is better understood and the benefits of education for good citizenship and good moral judgment are understood, I think liberal education will be more appreciated.

It is cost-effective to have education for good citizenship because that is how to prevent crime and keep prison and welfare populations low. And it does so without authoritarian rule above the people. Learning self-government begins with governing ourselves and knowing that obeying the law is how to protect our liberty.

The vast majority of political messaging is made to work people's emotions, though. That's not just Trump.

Worse still, with Trump it is very obvious, and thus limited in its effectiveness, whereas the messaging you ought to be really worried about is the stuff that is not obvious, and thus finds its way straight into their recipients' subconscious.

They become societal paradigms which are no longer questioned, no matter how defunct they might be. — Tzeentch

What you said might radically change for at least two reasons. The reason that is the most fun to think about is how new technology is making it possible for us watch the brain working and apply test to better understand how our brains work.

The second reason is a reaction to what is happening today. Many schools dropped civics and education for the humanities was completely replaced with education for technology. We are seeing the result of that now. For God's sake, we have a President who does not know the Constitution and can not answer questions about Constitutionally protected rights and wrongs. There is a chance voters may not have made this choice if they knew the Constitution and why it is important.

The 1958 National Defense Education Act put the Military and Industry in charge of education decisions.
I am saying this education for the Military, Industrial Complex is what made the US like the Germany that followed Hitler. Okay, Trump has moved for a complete breakdown of this Military Industrial Complex reality. That is both good and bad! I hate doing all the talking so can you or anyone else say why the change is both good and bad?

I know I have overlooked the concern for today's social media. That is serious but if we want change it must begin with education, so I narrowing my reply to public education.

So, what do you think US education is doing right, and what is it doing wrong, and why is this so? What do you believe is the purpose of education? What do you believe should be required subjects?

I think of this sort of knowledge as an 'act of faith', ultimately. To say that we can define human nature seems impossible to me, given that our understanding of what that means is inevitably evolving. — Jeremy Murray

I would say human nature comes from the evolution of our species. We are naked apes (without hair covering us). Anthropology is one path of studying human nature.

Anthropology is the study of humanity, encompassing its biological, cultural, and social aspects, both past and present. It aims to understand the human experience, including our origins, diversity, and social structures across time and geographic regions AI

Right now, we are learning a lot through brain imaging. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up when they are stimulated. This is a far better way of understanding our nature than reading the Bible.

The journal "Brain Imaging and Behavior" has an impact factor of 3.2 (2022). The journal also has a 5-year impact factor of 3.6 (2022). The journal's research focuses on the interface between functional brain imaging and human behavior, publishing research on mechanisms, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disorders of higher brain function. AI

I also love comparing religions. We are what we believe we should be, and basically, there is much religious agreement, but the mythology is different. Hinduism and Buddhism have different mythologies compared to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which share the same mythology from the perspective of different cultures. Christianity seems to be a combination of many religions that were popular back in the day, with the story of Jesus being familiar in other religions.

History has to be included as an interesting way to study humans, along with sociology. psychology, and related sciences. I think we can be confident in science and the collection of facts to understand humans, and then practice self-government through a democratic republic.

What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

I am not sure, but are you suggesting we all have compassion and basically the same life experience, manifesting a shared "common sense"?

I am thinking of people who, by their own account, were pretty unpleasant people. One such person believes his radical change into a compassionate and gentle person was a miracle he experienced when he was baptized and became a Christian. He praises God for this miracle.

I forget the experience that another man believes changed his life, but I remember he explained as a fascist, he enjoyed being brutally cruel. The cruelest of the group had the most status within the group. Then one day, he had an experience that totally turned his life around. He now attempts to turn others around.

I don't think we should trust the layman's "common sense". These people can become fascist and agree to do very cruel things to others, such as the KKK and the terrorism it practiced in the persecution of people of color. Nice Christian ladies were very much a part of the persecution of people of color as they united and intentionally spread a culture built on the history of slavery. In Germany, this was expressed in the persecution of Jews and mass murder. We are still dealing with these problems, so your belief in "common sense" may be in error.

Thanks for sharing that. I didn't know of it. You are right. Music does help. Topic for an essay? — Amity

Oh yeah, that is a good topic, along with the book's "How to Think" explanation of how our emotions affect our judgment and how our experiences affect our emotions. The right and left have different emotions, which lead to different judgments. Hum, the different paths we travel, and how do we come together as a united nation and United Nations? Can we come to a consensus on a future we want to share?

In fact I will go out on a limb and say that these things are good for societies - not just for individual people. — EricH

I am not sure. I think we need to consider our human nature and what brings out the best in us and what brings out the worst in us. In the past, we were concerned with human dignity. That is why social security was based on age rather than need. At the time, Roosevelt was hoping older people would give up their jobs to younger ones. Social Security enabled them to stop working on the grounds that they earned their Social Security, and it was not charity.

I see many people on the edges of society, and I am not sure if meeting all their needs without them earning what they get is a good thing? I think we need to have organization for our personal lives and a way of giving back. What do you think?

I'm quite familiar with your point by now. It's a bit late to fix the multitude of Trumpian crimes with a change in education. — Vera Mont

On what facts do you base your argument? Education is scrambling to fix the problem. I am not alone, but unfortunately, I appear to be the only one who knows what wars have to do with changes in education and what the Prussian new military order had to do with increasing bureaucratic power.
In the past, armies provided their provisions, not industrial leaders.

Okay, where are you facts?