Possibility
1.2k
But all this doesn’t change the facts that are already there, that have already been produced. What Peter thought about yesterday at noon, not to mention on this date last year, is an absolute fact, now forgotten and inaccessible but if you still try to guess what it was, that guess will have a definite truth value (true, false, partly true). Your thinking about Peter’s past thinking will not change it in any way. A fact remains a fact and truth is absolute.

The future holds facts not yet produced, so of course we can change what will come, and human contact, including guesses about their past thinking, does indeed play a role in our production of new facts. But the facts that are already produced are unalterable and therefore “out there”. (That is even true about my own thinking whatever I think about it now.)
— Congau

This I disagree with. That Peter had a thought yesterday at noon may be a fact, but the contents of that thought is potential information. There is no actual fact produced from a thought except the event of thinking. You even said yourself that Peter may be just as uncertain about his thoughts as anyone else. — Possibility

:lol: You both must be young to have that argument. I am lucky if I can remember a thought for 5 minutes. My thinking disappears like a puff of smoke on a windy day. There is no substance to a thought so perhaps we should not treat a thought as a tangible reality?

↪Athena Artemis and Demeter spring to mind. Or you could just look at the hindu pantheon of gods/goddesses - they often switch forms from male to female so that pretty much covers everything. — I like sushi

Athena wasn't a mother. She took responsibility for Hephaestus' child but stuck it in a box and left someone else responsible for it. That is like many working moms today.

Artemis was not a mother. She eventually got associated with other mother goddesses but I don't think she ever had her own child.

Demeter is clearly recognized as a mother goddess.

That may sound picky but it is very important to me. Demeter basically set her career aside when she needed to rescue her daughter. To me, a mother sacrifices herself for her children. I know this is not acceptable today, but for me, it is very honorable and very important to humanity. Our sense of right and wrong is very physical and even when our heads tell us our thinking may not be logical, our bodies will resist changing our position on right and wrong. So for me, a mother must be devoted to her children, and children should not be raised as we raise our pets, as an afterthought to our identity that is not about being a mother or a father. Treating our children as luggage that can be left on a shelve until we are ready for them, is not okay with me. That is my feeling put into words, not exactly a mandate for everyone, but something we might want to think about when we think about family, children, politics and the organization of our of the workplace and how we value mothers. Athena and Artemis do not qualify as mothers as I understand motherhood.

I really know very little of Hinduism and their gods and goddesses. I know I was shocked by the goddess, Kali the Mother and giver and taker of life. It was shocking to me that a goddess would be associated with taking life. But mind you, I come from a culture where the only female role model was Mother Mary. So for me, all the goddesses, all the different role models/ archetypes for women, was pretty amazing.

Lynne Kelly was the name I couldn’t recall - ironic considering the point was about memory systems! Haha!

Yes, that is a laugh. And thank you for sharing your humanness. I think sometimes we take ourselves too seriously and stop connecting as equal human beings who may not know everything, may forget what we do know, and may not always agree with ourselves. :rofl:

I will be gone for awhile. I am making masks for the homeless. They can not get on the bus without a mask. And a couple of nurses left Oregon to work in New York for a while and they need something to cover their hair. Reality is the priority at the moment. I love you all.

Well, I’d warn that the existence of peaceful cultures is not a convincing argument against the capacity for war being part of our ‘nature’ - only that the capacity for peace is part of our nature as well. My main argument here is that in entertaining both capacities simultaneously and without judgement (moral, logical, rational or otherwise), we perceive a more objective truth about our ‘nature’. — Possibility

You make me think. You are right about avoiding judgments. I don't doubt it is natural for humans to raid each other but others have questioned if today's warfare is a natural thing. Genghis Khan and his followers were hunters without an agrarian consciousness and hunting is natural to us, and they stayed away from home for a long time. I guess it doesn't really matter what is being killed.

One study observed if children are treated abusively from infancy, they grew up to be strong warriors, So upon examination of info in my head, I guess I do have to conclude you are right and I was being a bit romantic.

First of all, I don’t think this is so much a temporal shift as a value shift. We still turn to the earth for sustenance and comfort. But the reality is that our ‘earth mother’ isn’t focused on our individual or human sustenance and comfort, but on the general sustainability of all creation - often at our expense. This conflicts with an organic awareness of the individual ‘self’ as highest value, as evidenced by interoception of affect within the organism: prediction error, understood as suffering. — Possibility

That triggers the memory that perhaps our egocentric thinking is not common to all people. Some cultures have a stronger communal identity so that when there is a gathering each one thinks about what everyone is doing together, not "I am doing this right". I think there is something about being competitive or cooperative in this. True as you say this is about how we value ourselves, and that happens in a culture. It seems to for the last several decades the focus has been on competitiveness, but old textbooks in the US focused on being cooperative and sharing. This shift came with establishing the Military-Industrial Complex.

In developing an understanding of our relationship with the world, we have throughout history and culture been torn between accepting that we are an integral but ultimately expendable part of a self-sustaining universe, and entering into a dialogue/conflict with a separate entity that is ultimately more dominant, autonomous and influential than ourselves. The interesting result of this is that, while the experience of men points them towards dialogue/conflict, the position of women - whose experience points them towards interconnectedness - must then be accounted for within this dialogue/conflict: absorbed into the identity of the ‘earth mother’ or of ‘mankind’. — Possibility

OMG that statement is so exciting to me. For me what you said is science versus religion. It is also Daniel Kahneman's fast and slow thinking with the fast-thinking being common to all of us, and slow thinking, pondering what is so, is less common to us and some people totally avoid it. Liberal education developed slow thinking, education for technology does not, and the result of replacing our liberal education in the US with education for technology is the social/ economic/political mess we are in now.

I love your definition of the male/ female difference and mention that this difference is based on a division of labor. The traditional division of labor shaping our experience of life and self-esteem and a sense of personal power. Are we dependent or independent? What an incredible mix of concepts that make soups of many flavors out of basically the same concepts. I think this influences our left and right politics and the political crisis in the US we are experiencing. It also takes very special people to maintain this discussion. People here are not thinking in terms of black and white, but acknowledge all the shades of grey.

I don’t see any evidence - at least you haven’t presented any. If we’re talking purely about mythos there are enough instances of goddesses giving knowledge to humans to make your claim a questionable one. — I like sushi

Very good point of argument. What kind of knowledge? I would like to search for answers so do you have any mythologies in mind that I might read? I know often goddesses are said to be wise but wisdom and technology are separate things. I think today we are technologically smart but not wise.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from mythological references. The big step was sedentary life. — I like sushi

You make me think and I am loving this.

Did north American natives live in societies or civilizations? Was the confederation of the North East natives comparable to the Aztec civilization? I think there were many farming communities that were sedentary but not civilizations. I think there is a technological difference between a stable farming community and a civilization?

↪Athena Not really. I don’t know of any matriarchal societies full stop - at least not on a scale that would compare to a ‘civilization’.

Testosterone is apparently linked to an explorative function. There are more men with low IQ’s than women, and more men with higher IQ’s than women - it’s far from hard evidence though because it depends on interests and societal expectations and individual choices.

Hypothetically if women were physically stronger than men, but otherwise the same, I still think civilization would have advanced in pretty much the same manner it has (men and women are far more alike than different compared to literally every other primate).

The burden of pregnancy and child birth is by far the biggest difference. Other than that it’s just brute strength (which it not necessarily a tool of oppression or war; yet undeniably came into play during the birth of inequality). — I like sushi

I want to be sure you noticed I said there is a relationship between creation stories, gender dominance, and technological advancement or lack of it. Obviously our creation stories justify our choices and visa versa they tell us what our choices are. The Greek gods most certainly begin with a jealous father and a mother who just wanted her children to live and then a war between the generations of gods.

The Egyptian goddess Nut is curious to me because she did not intervene as a mother should when her children misbehaved. Unlike the male gods that kill humans and do punish.

While we have a lady of justice she holds scales because justice is weighed with wisdom and compassion, that is not exactly the power behind law and order, which begins with a male God doesn't it?

I see you have distinguished between a society and a civilization. I had this difference in mind and fall back on the God who does enforce law and order and mother goddesses and the lady of justice who were not the force behind law and order. This is sort of which came first- male dominance or civilization as distinctly different from a small society?

If we remove this culturally arbitrary distinction, we are on par with our lonely savage. If you doubt that, you might as well think that psychology can’t be practiced cross-culturally and theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race.
— Congau

I agree that ignoring the distinction puts us on par with the lonely savage - but that doesn’t improve our understanding of truth - it only reduces it. I DO think that psychology can’t be practiced with the same accuracy cross-culturally, and that cultural differences should always be taken into account when making decisions globally for the human race. — Possibility

Wow, that is an interesting argument- "theorize about cultural differences being more important than our common human race". A main reason for starting this thread is I do not believe it is human nature to war. There are peaceful cultures proving it is culture, not our nature, that leads to war.

— I like sushi

I forgot my main reason for arguing why I do not believe matriarchies would develop technology. When reading different creation stories it became evident that those with developed technology began with a creation story of male gods killing each other, and killing mankind, not a mother goddess who gives life and nurtures it. There appears to be a link between those creation stories war and technological advancement or living cooperatively and not developing technology.

This takes us back to the main discussion here. The dominant, influential individual will always value certainty above all, and view any uncertainty that inevitably persists in his choice of actions as overwhelmingly negative. The life of our lonely savage is attractive to him: no one questions his decisions or points out conflicting, alternative or unsettling information. Ignorance is bliss. An individual’s social connections and collaboration increase the uncertainty of his autonomy, dominance and influence. He is more aware of the universe, but less certain of his individual position in relation to it. — Possibility

Very nicely said. Any thoughts on how we shifted from turning to our earth mother for sustenance and comfort to the a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God?

Okay, I am ready to offer an explanation of why matriarchal societies did not develop technology. This is a weak argument because it appears no one has specifically paid attention to human social organization and technology. There is a study of apes and social organization. https://www.damemagazine.com/2013/05/10/five-things-we-know-about-societies-run-women/

A separate source of information was a video about how mother chimps transmit information to their children and how female children stay close to the mother and learn from her, while the males wander off and are slow to learn from their mothers. For sure among higher IQ species relationships are very important to learning, but that is not the driver for learning math, developing writing, and the technologies of civilization.

“In matriarchies, mothers are at the center of culture without ruling over other members of society,” says Heidi Goettner-Abendroth, founder of The International Academy HAGIA for Modern Matriarchal Studies. “The aim is not to have power over others and over nature, but to follow maternal values, ie. to nurture the natural, social and cultural life based on mutual respect.”

Now there is a technology driving force statement. Living in harmony with nature, as the native Americans and others around the world have done, does not drive technological development. It gets jars and baskets and art and jewelry but not math and writing. Picture writing I would put with in the female side of things, but not the symbolic letters of Jews and Greeks, and darn it but I gave away the book that explained what is important about the change in written language. I just remember the book said this change shifted power to males. But I found this online

How the Invention of the Alphabet Usurped Female Power in ...
https://www.brainpickings.org › shlain-alphabet-goddess
Mar 17, 2014 - God worship, masculine values, and men's domination of women are bound to the written word. Word and image, like masculine and feminine, ... — brainpickings

It is not that women can't do math. One of the most famous female mathematicians was killed by Christians, putting her in our history, and it is known Pathagorians included females. But I assure you, math is not typically what women talk about. I just do not believe a matriarchy would develop math and they did not develop writing as we know it. Now let us consider architecture that requires moving heavy stones. Not a whole lot of women are going to do that, and my first thought when I brought up the subject is that the civilizations we know of, that may have been matriarchal, did not have large buildings of any kind and they didn't have temples with huge statues of gods and goddesses, nor huge statues of their leaders. They had small sanctuaries in nature. And all buildings were small and modest. No massive government buildings or temples.

The very notion of many gods had to have grown from city living where life was too complex for one god to manage everything and some who study the gods see evidence of the male gods replacing the ruling goddess.

Essential to developing technology is metals and mining them. This is not a female activity. It is the boy wandering around hitting everything with a stick who is going to find that special rock and explore its potential and shove his friend into the hole to get more of them.

What do you think? Is that a good argument for what gender has to do with different social/political organizations and the development of technology?

You’ll have to explain further where you’ve pulled that from? — I like sushi

Okay, that will require looking through my books to find quotes and I need some time to do that. I do think this point is an important one and should be scrutinized.

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

Okay, as I said in response to sushi, I think only the male-dominated cultures developed technology. If we were all matriarchal, we would still be farming with sticks and communing with the Mother Goddess. But we would also have games to channel our aggressive urges as mothers keep the children busy to avoid problems. :lol: I could be wrong but I suspect the male impulse to correcting a child is more apt to be corporal punishment. Not that long ago it was legal to hit a wife and the law only attempted to limit that hitting. Men on ships were whipped. Slaves were whipped. And still the way we treat prisoners is horrifying!

Women could count on men to defend them. It is amazing how women stay with abusive men and attempt to avoid abuse by being pleasing. I have not observed too many men who attempt to get what they want and need by being pleasing. There are some. They are called "henpecked". Socially that is discouraged because it is not attractive to either men or women. But life loves diversity. And I think today, more men are apt to think and apply reason than in the past. That is in part what inspired this thread. I like the change I see in men. I like it a lot! I like the change for women as well, but who is taking care of the children?

I love contemplating this stuff and wondering, how did some cultures become passive and others become aggressive. I read a book addressing this difference between aggressive people who leave home and venture out into the world and nonaggressive people who stay home and cling to the familiar. Some tribes would invite trading. Mongols killed everyone in their path until a man from China taught Khan to harvest the cities (demand tribute).

↪Athena Masculine qualities are pretty essential in terms of discussion and approaching uncomfortable ideas. There is a certain degree of combat when ideas are laid out. Feminine qualities are also essential in discussions, for remaining open minded and explorative.

One without the other is a disaster.

If women wish to compete with men then they either have to bring men to where they are or meet them head on. Either way, as above, one without the other is a disaster.

The major change for women came into play with family planning. Things have shifted. — I like sushi

:heart: I think I love you. I wish the whole world held those ideas.

I think there are varying degrees in our differences. I know for sure I think differently from others and I am pretty passionate about others having some of the same thoughts I have, but I am also totally frustrated by my inability to find the words that make them clear. That is largely why I started this thread. I was hoping someone would say things better than I can, and that is happening. Others are saying what I wish I could find words for. You sure did an excellent job of that.

One more thought. It seems to me only male-dominated cultures developed technology. Ones with more female influence may have failed to develop technologically?

I'd have to disagree. Democracy, as a form of government, is solely for the administration of it purpose. While a well educated electorate probably makes for a "better" democracy, i don't know that I'd call it a necessary component. Additionally, I would not equate education/educated with search for truth. — Aussie

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson — Jefferson

If we can not agree democracy is an ideology, a complex concept, and like religion, only if the ideology is known can it be manifested, then it may be pointless for us to continue this discussion. Democracy has everything to do with overcoming the problems of ignorance, EVERYTHING! There are so many wonderful quotes about government and ignorance. Here is the link...
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/ignorance-quotes

"government, is solely for the administration of it purpose" :gasp:

Education for technology is not about overcoming ignorance. It is about thinking of the young as products to prepare for industry. Oregon had a governor who thought saying that was a good way to convince taxpayers to spend more on education. I was horrified! Technology has always been the education for slaves. Liberal education is for free men. The Statue of Liberty holds a book because our liberty is dependent on literacy. I am wondering is the problem we have here is because we stopped teaching the history that is essential to understanding our liberty? Sincerely, I am thinking something has gone seriously wrong with education for technology and I feel overwhelmed by this. Democracy is rule by the people. not authority over them and they better be educated!

Semantics...we are a democratic republic. Republican in our philosophy of states rights and inalienable individual rights within a federal system. Democratic in our ability to elect our representatives (which I understand has evolved over time) and grant that it is a spectrum and we have been more to one side or the other from time to time. — Aussie

Not at all just semantics. A Republic because of fear of the ignorant. When the US constitution was written it did not have a bill of rights. But educated people fought for the bill of rights. There was not mass education, in the north some religious colonies such as the Quakers had the necessary education and it had nothing to do with vocational training. Throughout the colonies extremely few had any literacy that is essential to democracy.

I opened my argument with a quote from Jefferson because he was one of the few who had the required literacy and he devoted his life to manifesting public education. Economically Jefference was wrong, but ideologically he was right and he fought the Federalist to defend our democracy. Jefferson fought our liberty and this was not limited to states' rights. We used to stand for liberty and justice, but that is not evident in your argument.

But, if democracy is a spectrum (degrees of enfranchisement) I do not see where you have shown Christianity rejects it outright. — Aussie

:gasp: You speak of authority over the people, (degrees of enfranchisement) and do not see how Christianity is opposed to liberty and democracy? The Bible is clearly about a kingdom and that is not a democracy, but supported the autocratic church and kings with its hierarchy of authority.

The Bible tells was we were created by a God out of mud and because the man and woman ate of the fruit of knowledge, that God cursed them and would not allow them to eat from the tree of life. None of that is compatible with democracy. If you think differently, please explain how you think that is compatible with our liberty and democracy?

.but you seem to suggest that these individuals pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in pursuit of an endeavor whose ends they found entirely abhorrent. — Aussie

:worry: Yes there are secular reasons to favor authority over the people. We have government to protect us from each other. But that isrule by reason, not rule of human authority over the people. It is Christianity that gets us Trump and that understanding of authority is extremely frightening! Can you paraphrase what I have said? Rule by reason and a consensus on the best reasoning, not rule by someone like Trump. It is Christianity that gets us a ruler like Trump.

Further, you assert their abhorrence of any degree of enfranchisement was BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs — Aussie

Oh yes, we agree on that. Except for those literate in Greek and Roman classics, it was the Bible that set their point of view. We might clarify some of them lusted for wealth and power as much as Trump does and that may not be Christian, but if you can get people to believe God whispers in your ear, and you, and they, know the will of God, then you have real power over the people. Bill Graham was the right-hand man for several Presidents, convincing the people it is God's will we send our young to war. Stuff like that gets presidents re-elected. It also made the Civil War extremely uncivil as both sides thought God was on their side, and war is the way the Bible tells us to behave. We must give our lives when that is what God wills us to do. I do not believe God willed us to fight in Vietnam, nor any war since then and those wars are what determined me to argue against Christianity.

Point? Republicans think Democrats are not fit to rule and vice versa. Libertarians think both are unfit. Socialists want the capitalists thrown out on their ear. One faction disagreeing with another and working to see there own philosophy advanced (at the expense of another) is not antithetical to democracy...it is democracy (so long as it is done through some system of election and political action). — Aussie

I have no problem with that as long people leave God out of it. But the Bible tells us God will give us leaders and Christians believe that and that thinking gets us some really terrible leaders!

I said "Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved."

You said,

What makes you think that? It doesn't appear to be about either. It is about the rights of individuals to have a say in the administration of their political world. In other words, it it not about human excellence or salvation...it is about human freedom; freedom which may just as well lead to all sorts of not excellent outcomes as the reverse. — Aussie

Please, this is a philosophy forum. Do you know any Greek or Roman philosophers? Basic to that point of view is all plants and animals have their purpose. Fish are made to swim. Birds are made to fly. Horses are made to run. Humans are made to think. This obviously is not compatible with the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the command to obey God or Allah and His chosen leaders and the notion we should honor God by being good slaves.

So now, one's views on cosmological and historical science assertions renders them incompatible with a political system... — Aussie

Yes. Vital to democracy is truth. The purpose of humans is to think. And right now some of us believe science is vitally important, and some of us do not. The social, economic, and political ramifications of this are great. What is anti-democratic about insisting it is important to know truth and to think? Ignorance is extremely dangerous. Right now ignorance has thrown our nation into an economic crisis, and there is evidence we are destroying our planet. Let's see if we can reason through the importance of education and knowing truth? Knowing truth is about having good lives and avoiding bad consequences. This does not mean I take a club and beat away ignorant people, but it does mean I say, again and again, a liberal education is vital to our democracy. Rule by reason, not rule by having more power than you do.

So long as both of you are willing to work within a system of some amount of enfranchisement neither of you appear to hold views incompatible with democracy. — Aussie

Wow, Cicero- it will be what it is and if we don't get it right, bad stuff will happen. Democracy is about figuring things out. It is an ideology. It is a way of life that depends on knowing truth.

Ultimately, though, you failed to show what in Christianity is incompatible with the notion that some amount of the citizenry should be enfranchised to have a say in the administration of their political system. .

Granted, the task is difficult until an adequate definition of "Christianity" is agreed upon. But that alone would be an entire thread in itself...and likely lead to nowhere. — Aussie

Really? Let us pretend we know nothing of science. However, we study the Bible every day. How does a good Christian deal with a pandemic, without science? Which would you want to give up, science or the Biblical myths?

The Athenian law against blasphemy originated with Solon. — frank

I am not sure of your point? Solon was before the democracy and later Socrates was told to kill himself with hemlock for questioning the gods. But Socrates did question them and so did those practicing the art of medicine. Philosophy, as you know, is a love of knowledge but the process of what would develop as scientific thinking, thousands of years later, was just beginning and not everyone would have pursued knowledge. Religion was just as important to the Athenians as it is to people today. Athens had its good times and bad times, such is life. In bad times people tend to turn to their gods and fear those who might offend them.

I am not sure what your point is. The North and South had bascially different people. The Puritans were not known for religious tolerance. Nor were they the only religious colony.

For the rest of the chatter, Something has caused an itch on my back to flare up and I feel going crazy in tormenting pain. :grimace: I am signing off until this passes.

It’s hard to say what a matriarchal society would look like today. It’s hard for me to imagine a strong patriarchal society - I’m European and I’ve grown up during the transition, so I know of a more equal society between the sexes than say more ‘traditional’ family units.

I’d be careful with the use of ‘feminine’ and ‘masculine’ because most people assume they equate to ‘female’ and ‘male’.

It’s an interesting subject. I’m not so sure that philosophical discourse helps cut right to the core issues though. Science can reveal certain truths, but when it comes to human behavior it’s a tricky thing to investigate as almost anyone can find ‘evidence’ to back up their own pet theories.

I’ve come to discussion late. What specifically is of interest to you in this area? — I like sushi

I will definitely opt for open-mindedness. I am coming from the traditional past and it was not my intent to start a battle of the sexes. I am sort of surprised by what happens when I say being feminine is a good thing.

I went from being the ideal 1950 ideal woman to "just a housewife" in the 70 tys. Some good has come out of the change but also a lot of bad has come out it because no one wants to be "just a housewife". That is very demeaning and so I want to speak of the values of being a traditional woman.

I have some strong concerns about the effect of "liberating women" to be like men. When the USSR did this, at first the economy boomed but then women and children began falling below the poverty level and abortion and divorce rates increased. In the US we can add to this, so has the rate of women and children involved in crime increased as victims and perpetrators.

At first, I thought women's lib was a good thing because I had ambitions and looked forward to having a career, but for some of us, when our husbands walked out in the middle of a long recession, reality did not look as good as the promise. I don't want to get too personal, but the reality for many women is low wages and having to pay for child care and all the other bills with no help and our children are being institutionalized by 3 months of age. Some child care facilities are better than others, but no matter good the child care, it can not benefit a child as parents can. So I am concerned not only for the women who are now economic slaves, but also their children.

As for philosophical discussion, how else can we determine human values? And, and what of the possibility that history could have gone differently? What if we are not doomed to war and brutality?

This is where my curiosity rises. Potential...what is meant by this? Better? Possible? Preferred? Imaginable? For instance, the pile of 2x4's and nails in my barn has the "potential" to be all sorts of things: a dog house, an addition to my living room, a bike ramp for the kids, a fence, etc etc. But what it becomes will be a function of my preference. Did I deny the lumber's potential by building a dog house instead of adding on to my living room? It becomes all the more interesting a question when coupled with "domination". Potential for domination... I'm interested to hear more about that. — Aussie

I don't think either sex should dominate but the example of bonobo and chimps is to question if we are doomed to war and other forms of brutality because it is our nature? I have a preference for peace and family life. That is not exclusively female, but neither is it a chimp choice. It is a bonobo choice. It is the animals that have male and female domination and hopefully, humans work together without dominating. You seemed to speak for working together and I will point out that is not "men being the head of the household" as some males have interpreted their right to rule. We have had patriarchy and that has oppressed people, especially women.

Very little, if anything. I can imagine religious tolerance in a society that has little regard towards truth just as easily as I can imagine it in a society that has high regard towards truth. — InPitzotl

It is a matter of where we look for the truth, in a holy book or in nature.

Liberal Democracies embody a system of trial-and-error, a la Popper. A country is almost forced to learn from the mistakes of its political experiments, allowing them to self-correct peacefully over time. Governments submit their policy to public scrutiny and are accountable for their actions. In that sense Democracy fosters the scientific tradition of critical discussion. — NOS4A2

Political accountability would be nice right now. I think we are having this discussion right now because we forgot what science has to do with democracy. :zip:

Science arrives at facts democratically? That's an interesting perspective. When do they vote? — frank

Democracy is a way of life. In those science labs people are consulting with each other. If we had the democratic model of industry, everyone would be consulting with management on the best way to achieve desired goals. In the home, as young women today are insisting, agreements are made democratically. No more the male rules over the woman and she does as she is told.

How so? Democracy is a political system for the administration of daily life. In what way does a "search for truth" form the foundation? Can a political system be both democratic and disinterested in romantic notions of searching for truth? — Aussie

All governments are varying degrees of democracy and autocracy. The actual form of the US government is a republic and at the moment we have a president who thinks all power is correctly his and he can rule over governors and mayors. That is a little startling to those of us who prefer democracy to autocracy, but he has a strong following of Christians who believe in God's kingdom. Those of us who do not believe God whispers in his ear, and think decisions right now must be based on science, not wishful thinking, are alarmed and that makes this thread very important.

In a series of textbooks written to mobilize the US for WWII, we are told "Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality. affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, august, 1939)

Government is one aspect of democracy. Being well educated is another aspect of democracy. Reading Pericles' Funeral Oration makes these arguments clearer.

Democracy and Christianity are not compatible...
— Athena

Strange, then, that so many of this country's founders were Christians. Mind you, I am NOT proposing the argument that this is/was/should be a "Christian nation". I merely suggest that if the two systems are incompatible, it strains credulity that many adherents of the one were the founders of the other in this country. Do you suggest they actively worked in contradiction to another of their own deeply held beliefs?

What a delicious question! I will repeat the US is a republic, and only through education can it manifest democracy as a way of life, and I am repeatedly told of the founders' fear of the masses. In the US, industry is autocratic and most people do not know of the democratic model for industry. Then we might consider the Federalist Papers and Jefferson's opposition to them. And we can go on to speak of the Civil War and how both sides thought God was on their side. YES, the founders of our democracy "actively worked in contradiction to another of their own deeply held beliefs"? They saw themselves as fit to rule, but not the other guy. The other guy, as the Bible tells us, is a sinner and needs to be saved. Even if he claims to be Christian, he is not a Christian like us and does not know God's truth and not everyone held political power. The protected freedom of religion was to stop them from persecuting and killing each other and that becomes part of our documents, not because of Christians but because of literacy in Greek and Roman classics.

Is this a suggestion that your (or democracy's) philosophical answers are not only correct but also possess a rock solid basis?

Yes, and if you have another question I will continue my explanation of that. Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved. That is importantly very different.

What are those philosophical underpinnings that are both complete and consistent?

There is no such thing.

This is to say, are you sure there aren't philosophical notions required for your truth loving democracy that, when you get right down to brass tacks, aren't built on little more than you really, really wanting them to be true?

I hope you give me an argument that I can argue. It is not about what I want, but what I know, and I hope you will come to understand that.

All Christians?

No, but right now enough of them to be alarming!

Since...always? Or do you think this is a more recent phenomena?

No, but when the Church had authority yes! It destroyed the pagan temples that were places of learning, and medicine. It threw medicine back hundreds of years. It killed people to protect its truth. And unfortunately, education for technology has reestablished the power of Christians to personally deny science because in 1958 we stopped education for good moral judgment and left that to the church. A huge mistake! For about 200 years when we had education for democracy, Christianity was not the problem it is today.

And opposed to ALL science? Or specific scientific notions? Again, the plethora of Christian scientists, both dead and living, seems to suggest otherwise. But perhaps you mean your broad sweeping statement more narrowly than it reads.

The history of Christians and science is interesting. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, these Christians believed science would explain God with absolute certainty. Then came the problem of earth not being the center of the universe. And evolution- whoo was that a problem! and it still is. That is precisely why Christianity is not compatible with democracy. If there ever was a defining conflict that is it.

A rebellion against taxes got plenty of support, but the notion of democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics and begins with math and a notion of proofs and creeps into medicine as a growing disbelief that gods have anything to do with health problems, and Aristotle took this intellectual development further with an explanation of logic. The American Revolution began as an intellectual revolution long before it became a violent one. Literate leaders appealed to the dislike of taxes to recruit those who were not literate, then they wrote the documents that gave their new democracy form.

I've never thought of the search for truth as a particularly American value. No one is opposed to such a search, but religious tolerance, which is most definitely an American value, requires a certain amount of apathy about any victory of truth. John Locke is one of our favorites.

As for science, again, no one is opposed to it, but I'm still not seeing how it has much to do with democracy. A love of democracy is like this:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
— Lincoln — frank

The search for truth is universal, and it was an American value, but is no longer an American value thanks to Christianity.

Democracy is built on a search for truth, starting in Athens, not the US. Democracy and Christianity are not compatible because they are entirely different belief systems that oppose each other. One is based on superstition (creationism) and the other is based on contemplating philosophical questions and observation of nature. And yes, Christians are opposed to science. They treat science as the snake in the Garden of Eden and without question, this is a very serious political problem in the US.
 
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

That definitely is not a Christian notion! Without a doubt, Lincoln was familiar with Pericles Funeral Oration.

Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs. It seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honor should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honored in deed only, and with such an honor as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperiled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavor to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me.

I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and seemly that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valor they will have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers, who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. And we ourselves assembled here today, who are still most of us in the vigor of life, have carried the work of improvement further, and have richly endowed our city with all things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace and war. Of the military exploits by which our various possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should like to point out by what principles of action we rose ~ to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire became great. For I conceive that such thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably listen to them.

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; our homes are beautiful and elegant; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish sorrow. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.

Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, though and we never expel a foreigner and prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which they face. And here is the proof: The Lacedaemonians come into Athenian territory not by themselves, but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbor's country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil, we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength, the care of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been vanquished by us all.

If then we prefer to meet danger with a light heart but without laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law, are we not greatly the better for it? Since we do not anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave as those who never allow themselves to rest; thus our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we are lovers of the beautiful in our tastes and our strength lies, in our opinion, not in deliberation and discussion, but that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by receiving favors. Now he who confers a favor is the firmer friend, because he would rather by kindness keep alive the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying a debt. We alone do good to our neighbors not upon a calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up: I say that Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is verified by the position to which these qualities have raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her. No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please for the moment, although his representation of the facts will not bear the light of day. For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a path for our valor, and have everywhere planted eternal memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and every one of us who survive should gladly toil on her behalf.

I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes 1 can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! I believe that a death such as theirs has been the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valor with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honorably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonor, but on the battlefield their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory.

Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit, although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be expressed in words. Any one can discourse to you for ever about the advantages of a brave defense, which you know already. But instead of listening to him I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it, who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all tombs, I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth is the tomb of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and, esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the general hope.

Wherefore I do not now pity the parents of the dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know that your dead have passed away amid manifold vicissitudes; and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained their utmost honor, whether an honorable death like theirs, or an honorable sorrow like yours, and whose share of happiness has been so ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a man never knew, but which were a part of his life before they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at which they may hope to have other children, and they ought to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones, but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have passed their prime, I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you have been happy during the greater part of your days; remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the love of honor alone is ever young, and not riches, as some say, but honor is the delight of men when they are old and useless.

To you who are the sons and brothers of the departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however preeminent your virtue may be, I do not say even to approach them, and avoid living their rivals and detractors, but when a man is out of the way, the honor and goodwill which he receives is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men.

I have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law, making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have them in deeds, and it remains only that their children should be maintained at the public charge until they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead, after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you have duly lamented, every one his own dead, you may depart. — Perciles

It's always, "oohh, so you warned us about this smarty pants. Are you happy now that everyone is suffering from what you warned us about!" Instead of "hmm, yes, we definitely made bad predictions and bad decisions and have no coherent worldview that can even process the present situation, maybe we should think about that." — boethius

As my Christian friend said, she is forgiving and loving. Inferring I am not because I do not believe Trump is a great father for our country and I can no longer tolerate her denial of his serious errors and lies. I think he is the wrong leader for this time in history.

My Christian friend is as about as anti-science as a person can be. Science has become the snake that told Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Innocently she has no idea how Trump could have known what would happen and what steps needed to be taken because she does not turn to science to know such things. It seems many Christians think if they do not know something, it is something that can not be known. For some reason, education for technology has made Americans more anti-science and more religious than they have been in 200 years! :gasp:

I think I'm failing to realize that. What's the connection? — frank

To clarify, the question is what is the connection between science and democracy.

When we prepared for WWI and WWII schools and bookmakers focused on American values to mobilize the United States for war. This focus would include a list of democratic characteristics. One of them is... "The search for truth".

You might be aware of the ongoing disagreement between Deist and Christians about truth and self-evident truth. A self-evident truth is an empirical truth. it is a fact that can be verified through the scientific method. European countries were Christian and Christianity supports the notion of kings and a hierarchy of authority over the sinners, that supposedly has God at the top. Democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics and coming from this source, truth is based in reality and empirical information. In a democracy, that is not contaminated by Christianity, there is no god whispering in the king's ear it will be safe for people to return to life as normal by Easter, "such a special day". :roll:

Moa was worshipped by communist followers and Moa had the power to make farmers plant everything deep in the soil with the wrong notion that this would lead to deep roots and strong plants. It lead to famine and thousands starved to death. Just as Trump's denial of the reality of a pandemic lead to its spread before the medical system could be prepared to manage the problem. No one could vote Moa out of office, but in the US, a democracy, the citizens can vote ignorant people out of office. That is what the American Revolution was all about. We rely on science- the search for truth, not faith in someone chosen by God to be our leader. Or we did until education for technology left moral training to the church and resurrected a past of ignorance and superstition and distrust of science.

Well, that’s not been my understanding. Many philosophers’ writings show evidence of development in beliefs throughout their career, resulting in a necessary distinction between ‘early’ and ‘late’ philosophies that we can often struggle to reconcile. I will concede that it’s not a prerequisite, but it seems to me to be a characteristic of long-published philosophical careers. — Possibility

Oh yeah, our thinking changes a lot as we age, if we are in the habit of thinking. Not everyone is in the habit of thinking, but many are in the habit of avoiding it, and from there they are reactionary. That is a failure to actualize our potential as thinking creatures.

I am confident I would have complete a book about education, culture, and politics, years ago, but I keep reading and learning, and the book always needs to be rewritten as my understanding improves. :lol:

Not an entirely false belief - in their experience of the Earth, it does actually appear flat. You can’t deny that, because it’s part of your experience, too. It is only when we can explain how their belief is structured in relation to our own that we can show how the illusion is formed and where the errors are. This is why the ‘flat earth society’ still exists - because simply telling people their belief is ‘false’ is not enough, and only encourages their ignorance. — Possibility

You are so good with words and your thoughts are so well developed. You are awesome.

"Sinful" is an ethical judgment. In my opinion, issues of gender identity are an aesthetic matter - they are qualitatively incompatible with the ethical sphere, and should be kept separate from it.

But, to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic. The application of these terms factors only relativistically, so if the nonbinary labels itself normal, then the binary is necessarily rendered abnormal. The normal can hardly retain its essence and meaning independent of its dialectical relation to the abnormal. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would say sin is ignorance. It is as Cicero said, we would make the right choice if we knew what that was. Making the wrong choice is ignorance of the right choice.

I understand "moral" to be a matter of cause and effect. So when it comes to gender identity What would be the bad of a bad choice? For me, that would be giving up my femininity because humanity needs the feminine influence and I don't want to give up enjoying being a woman. Really, I make a terrible man! I have no desire to compete with them. But if this were the past and I was left on a farm without a husband, I would work like a man to the best of my ability. Theodore Roosevelt spoke of how important women are in times of war, and I am very proud of what women have always done to keep the children alive in good and bad times.

I don't know why you are arguing "to qualify that which is abnormal as normal is very problematic". I don't think I ever did that. What I did is state our gender and our gender identity is not as simple as the normal X and Y combinations. My intent was to say there is a lot of variety and make room for tolerance of differences based on science, rather than leave alone the status quo of intolerance based on religion without science.

Now back in the day, we could look at Sparta and make an issue of population decline resulting from men being more interested in men than women. That would make it a moral problem of cause and effect and in the case of Sparta, I would say it was a cultural problem not the result of the variety of X and Y combinations.

You vote for bad people? A joke? A remarkably stupid joke. — tim wood

Not a joke but Wrestlemania mentality. Have you seen the video of Trump shaving a wrestler's head? He is the ring taking full part in the freak show of abusiveness. Who wants a president with no dignity and so ignorant of science his careless increased the spread of the virus? And his lies and womanizing, and his poor wife. Not in my time have we had such a pathetic first lady. She is no Elenor Roosevelt, but more like the victimized females of Wrestlemania.

At least Biden is speaking in favor of science. It would be nice if we realized what science has to do with democracy and why we are doing better than when religion, not science, ruled. The problem is not limited to Trump but includes our national opposition to science and my Christian friends make it obvious where that comes from. :mask:

I am not sure the US is wealthy. I think it appears wealthy because everyone uses credit cards and the government runs on credit. I think we are pretty scared of what increasing our debt will do to the country.

On the other hand, the US has used military spending to boost its economy since WWII and I don't understand why spending on health and education would not do the same.

One state governor seemed to suggest the high number of people of color dying from the virus is their fault for having bad health. I am wondering how many of those deaths were because the poor can not afford medical care, therefore, they died at home without medical care. I hope those deaths are well researched and my concern is proven unfounded.

Ok, let me offer an interpretation of what you are saying that would make it sound more palatable to me:
Suppose you possessed the truth about a certain phenomenon. You had a very strong belief that you were right, but of course you didn’t know it. None of us knows anything, but in this case your belief happened to be true. Still, your belief, though true, would not be perfect and every time you learned about other people’s false belief on the subject and interacted with them, you would expand your understanding of it and get a firmer grasp of the truth.
Just hitting upon the truth has little value for a philosopher if the belief rests on a weak foundation and by “sharing meaning” you can strengthen it.
Do you accept my interpretation? — Congau

Yeap, that is the essence of democracy. It is about what we believe, not who rules. It is totally awesome and it is not explained in the Bible.

Some of the presidents in the US get there by appealing to the Christians who know the Bible but not the reasoning for democracy, and then we get a president who tells us God whispered in his ear that the coronavirus would pass by Easter, "a very special day" and we could all come together and celebrate the resurrection. Democracy, however, depends on science so we got a decision to extend our isolation until the numbers indicate it is safe to go out and we have the medical requirements needed to control the disease and save lives.

You see? It is about right reason and if we do not agree we better argue until we do, because acting on bad reasoning means things will go wrong and we will regret that decision. That is the reasoning that got us out of the Dark Ages and into an age of reason and science that more than doubled our life expectancy and means believing our children are more likely to live to be old, than they are likely to die by age 3. Right reason, science, has done more to end evil than holy books.

Sorry - by ‘shared’, I don’t mean agreed upon in all aspects. A perspective that is shared - as in expressed, discussed, articulated - exists. A fictional character that remains only in your imagination may have an intriguing viewpoint, but its meaning comes from being shared - from allowing that viewpoint to interact with another. A shared meaning is one which is related between two or more people, whether they agree only on its existence or on some aspects but not others. — Possibility

That is a beautiful way of explaining that.

Democracy may be a practical form of government that protects against tyranny, but reasonable? No, it isn’t. It’s an eternal compromise which makes decisions based on formal procedures rather than systematic logic hatched by a unified mind.
There’s no consensus on the best reasoning. All actors still think their original reasoning was best, but they can’t get it all, so they have to be content with a part of it. — Congau

Your words tickle me. Democracy is not a practical form of government. A republic is a more efficient form of government, and under that form of government is a culture and it is that culture that should get most of our attention.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men, and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." There are several characteristics of democracy. One of them is to participate in the duties of democracy. The rest are about we live together. Sort of a secular 10 commandments.

Democracy is an imitation of the gods. We argue like they did until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Effectively this is rule by reason, not rule by authority over us. Democratic people are motivated to obey their laws, because they understand the reasoning of the laws, and know they can be changed if there is better reasoning.

If all actors do not agree and independently think their reasoning is best, we better argue the reasoning until we do have agreement because if we do not get things right, bad things will happen. The consequences of our actions can not be changed by sacrificing animals, saying prayers or burning candles, so we need to be as sure as we can be that our actions are the right ones.

From my own experiences in the (private) education sector, the majority of teachers today are anything but impersonal. Certainly there are regulations and codes of conduct in place to protect all parties (increasing since the 70s here) that make it seem from the outside as if teaching has lost that personal touch, but the greatest strength of a teacher is still their capacity to develop relationships with their students despite the limitations. I think you may need to take your focus off what has been lost in relation to the past. — Possibility

I would say teachers today do seem to be ignoring the bureaucratic mind set that was promoted soon after enacting the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I was shocked to see a complete refusal that seems to be based on anthropology studies of the importance of relationships to learning.

Now we need to improve the breadth of that education and make it more well rounded, and individualized so all the young people who are not going to college are not cheated out of the education they need for their self-actualization.

I’m not familiar with the advocation of drug use to manage emotions at a government institutional level. My personal experience is of Australia, though, and drug use is very much portrayed here as a strictly personal and leisure activity, not a therapeutic or professional one - even in social work. I am, however, conscious of the cultural promotion of legal and prescription drug use specifically to manage emotions in the US, so it wouldn’t surprise me. — Possibility

No wonder you are so smart. You are Australian. I envy you. Truly I do.

:lol: Using prescribed drugs to manage emotions is not something printed in the explanation of policy but the environment and expectation of "professional" behavior. We have a "Brave New World" mentality. My sister who worked for a state support enforcement division has better stories than I do. Mine is not that great, but I was dismissed for "being too friendly" and my clients who defended me were told the danger of really being friends and not just superficial (professional) friends. When management of the organization changed, I rejoined the organization and I am so pleased with the change in policy! So I am thinking a large part of the problem in schools and bureaucracies may be passing? We have experienced the problems with too much authoritarian control.

The difference really matters when the state takes custody of children. When my grandchildren were made wards of the state, I joined a group of grandparents whose grandchildren were made wards of the state, and we were able to change state policy and increase family rights to keep the children in the family. Now the help families in trouble receive is awesome. It is like our nation went through a very ugly period and I hope we continue in a more human-friendly direction. My son and daughter were in school when things were not good and when they came of age we announced a national youth crisis. That is why I have spent the rest of my life studying what went wrong.

Any organisation that reaches a certain size becomes aware of the uncertainty of human potential, and the increasing inability to please everyone. How managers minimises that uncertainty is by excluding emotional intelligence from their decision-making process, and establishing a concrete relational structure or institution. This ‘scientific’ approach then becomes a ‘best practice’ model for smaller organisations and companies who are focused on growth. — Possibility

That is extremely helpful information. It would explain a learning curve and serious errors. After independent thinking was killed, I know at least one welfare department began pleading for employees to do more independent thinking and everyone was afraid to do so.

Oh my, you are triggering so many memories! This is totally awesome.

My friends lacked college degrees but had perfect control of a human services office because they knew the community. Sarah, the receptionist, could resolve any problem because she knew the community so well. Then, in came a college graduate with her fancy title and "professional authority" and she was the kiss of death. This "professional", an outsider, told Sarah she was to do none but send people back to her office. Sarah left and within a year this rural community no longer had a human services office.

Including emotional intelligence in the decision-making process involves accepting a higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability than most management styles are comfortable with. But effective growth is about identifying and focusing on an underlying impetus more than an overarching structure. Again, it isn’t about the autonomy, independence and identity of a concrete, actual institution or individual, but about working together to maximise the potential of the organisation as an ongoing relational structure. But banks and investors need certainty, and so do people with families to support and bills to pay... — Possibility

Perfect! The bad things happened before the book Emotional Intelligence was published. It is not only that we experience authoritarianism can be very destructive, and kind of like putting a stick in the spokes of a wheel, but we have much more research than we had back then. Thank you for helping be more aware of this.

I think that maximising awareness, connection and collaboration is not an achievable end-goal in actuality. And to be honest, I’m not arguing that maximising autonomy, independence and identity is necessarily a BAD thing - but it’s not an achievable end-goal, either. Whether we label this difference as masculine-feminine or not, it’s not a definable dichotomy as such, but an interaction of relative potentialities. — Possibility

I think the democratic model of industry does maximize awareness, connection, and collaboration and the autocratic model prevents it.

I

think it is in the imbalance and in challenging each other with a dynamic state of equilibrium that we give meaning to our thoughts, words and actions, our lives and our existence. This is how the universe has developed thus far, from atomic, chemical and molecular relations to the origin of life, evolution, consciousness and imagination... — Possibility

That may be so. Our history is not one of balance and I don't think that past was a desirable one. However, it is possible our consciousness will change so much we could speak of a New Age when consciousness is so changed, people can not relate to people of the past.

To merge the abnormal into the category of the normal is a ridiculous confusion of concepts, and definitely would require an abundance of overthinking. — Merkwurdichliebe

Then don't do it. However, let us not deny that not everyone fits in the normal range and accept their differences are biological and not "sinful". My only concern is people be well informed and aware of biological differences and accepting of them.

Nah, ethics and morality are timeless. Just the kind of stuff that need to be included in it, the 'stitution. — Shawn

What is the source of ethics and morality? The US has always been more religious and less philosophical than Europe. Not that long ago illiteracy was common and the only thing many learned was from a preacher. That left people on the lower levels of moral thinking.

Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level has two sub-stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage.
Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology
https://www.simplypsychology.org › kohlberg — simplypsychohology

If we do not pay attention to what education has to do with moral thinking, we are going down the toilet. We had education for good moral judgment and those who had that education manifested a very different culture from the Wrestlemania culture we have today. Religion is the lowest level of moral thinking dependent on fear of punishment and rewards provided by a God or god-like figure (parents). In 1958 we replaced education for good moral judgment, with education for technology and left moral training to the church.

The 2012 Texas Republican Agenda was to keep education for higher-order thinking skills out of the schools, and that state strongly pushed for creationism being taught as a science equal to the theory of evolution. The Bible supports the notion that we can not be self-governing and must have authority above us and God gives us leaders and our prayers give this person the power of God. In this corner we have Jesus. In that corner we have Satan. And the crowd is worked into a frenzy.

These folks have no idea, our constitution is based on notions of human excellence and the power of knowledge. Please, do not stop with the words "ethics" and "morals". Those words are like flat balloons, without education and leaving moral training to the church is not a good idea.

Who reads the constitution? Who is aware of the philosophical foundation of democracy? Who is literate in the classics that are the foundation of democracy?

How about Neitche and Hegel? Superman and the State is God.

We must pay attention to education and culture. If people are turning to the Bible for truth and we stay on the same path Germany followed, what will the result be?

↪Banno I thought the idea was a tripartite set of watchers watching the watchers, each with the ability to intervene. Not that the President was the single unifying command, except, perhaps in war - which is one way the tripartite structure has fallen, since Presidents can de fact declare wars without Congress and have been using Executive Orders much more than Presidents used to. All by passing Congress. And since the Supreme court touches none of this, but could conceivably, they too have lost notches.

Couple all that with the incredibly power money has over government and we have a mess long before Trump came a long with his circus. — Coben

The Eisenhower administration put the Military-Industrial Complex in place and I think we should all heed his warning.

Despite his military background and being the only general to be elected president in the 20th century, he warned the nation with regard to the corrupting influence of what he describes as the "military-industrial complex". ... But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense.
Eisenhower's farewell address - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Eisenhower's_farewell_address — Wikipedia

The Military-Industrial Complex is what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. It is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. We are now what we defended our democracy because we adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education, and the general population is clueless and therefore defenseless, emotionally driven and reactionary.

Adopting the German model of bureaucracy was essential because our bureaucratic organization was extremely inefficient and could not manage federal programs such as social security. If we had just retained education of our liberty and democracy, we would not be in the mess we are in now. A man like Trump would be recognized as a tyrant, not the Great Father of our country that many Christians think he is, and we would have managed the pandemic with science, not a man who tells us God whispered in his ear that our social distancing could end by Easter, such a special day. :rage:

We would have the democratic mythology of our democracy, not the Christian mythology of our democracy. Destroying our national heroes was very much about shifting power and authority from citizens to centralized power and authority. The state is God and all must conform to the state. God's will and our will are the same because we are good Christians, right? :pray:

I think we are in a cultural crisis and that unless we return education to defending our democracy, we will lose it. No branch of government can defend our liberty if all citizens are not educated to do so.