I don't know if this was intended in the OP but is the distinction eastern and/vs western philosophy valid? — TheMadFool

Absolutely. The east has a circular wholistic logic and in the west logic is closed and linear. Western thinking is very materialistic and that makes Christianity a paradoxical mode of thinking, because believing in unseen supernatural beings is not materialistic.

This western logic is completely rejecting of belief systems involving an animated earth and earth as one living organism until parts of this notion are empirically evident. Empirically the laws of physics, not the laws of spirit. Western logic seriously set back our ability to see how nature works together and what we were doing to the environment and our planet. It continues to blind us to some truths. This is still be a serious problem, especially for Christians who believe in supernatural powers but not an earthly spiritual reality where man is a part of nature, not separate from it.

Yes, I like that :rofl: well said - and i agree - as we get older we are better able to integrate and unify ideas, and deal with situations, and that is a form of enlightenment.

So you are saying there are many forms of enlightenment?? — Pop

Well, you worded what I was trying to say much better. Thank you.

About different kinds of enlightenment I don't know. I just know my own experience and thinking this has to be an experience of enlightenment. For me, it is like a light turns on in my head and I see things more clearly, but this does not last. It becomes as old new as soon as the thought is assimilated and indistinguishable from just thinking.

I have had what may be called transcendental experiences and I would classify that just as an unusual experience. Especially one changed my perspective but being unusual I can't really trust it.

I have read there is new research into the possibility of using psychedelic drugs to resolve some mental issues that are proving very promising and from what I have heard of them, my transcendental experience would be more along the line of a drug-induced experience. But I have not done psychedelics so I can not really compare that with your explanation of enlightenment of unified ideas and a greater understanding of the complexity.

Since this is an eastern philosophy thread, I would say eastern consciousness may increase the chances of having a transcendental experience because of opening the mind to that possibility. Every culture has a subconscious and our cultures dictate what is taboo and what is okay. I think if a person has a closed mind, enlightenment or a transcendental experience is unlikely. I think we have an element in our western culture that closes people's minds.

I am posting so this so it shows up in my comments, and I can easily find it. I really want to return to this thread when I am well-rested. It looks like you are serious thinkers worth reading.

Reading the last line

The "machinery of ideology" is in fact people DECIDING society is good enough to (literally) procreate more people to experience it. — schopenhauer1

presses me to say, every society has a subconscious just like individuals and from time to time they need psychoanalysis when their behavior indicates the entity is having a serious problem! The US is in desperate need of psychoanalysis because it is not the democracy it defended in two world wars and it is no longer united and ideologically strong but is divided and destroying itself.

Finally can anybody tell me the difference between enlightenment, and the delusion that you are enlightened??? — Pop

Being enlightened is a personal perspective. Being deluded is someone else's perspective. :lol:

On a more serious side but definitely related- is the aha moments we all have, and for many of us, these aha moments become more profound in our later years. It is a sudden awareness that our consciousness has definitely expanded. This is not an additional thought, but a new understanding as thoughts come together.

The young assimilate facts, but in our later years, ideas in our heads seem to suddenly come together in a new awareness with greater meaning that is more than the sum of the parts. Such as realizing a discussion of virtues could be more productive than a discussion of morals without at the same time holding a concept of virtues and how a person becomes more virtuous. And a notion of consciousness being limited to experience, seems essential to any discussion of morals. That is morality becomes an increasingly complex concept, meaning something very different from the less complex concept of moral. That is enlightenment and it is more likely to be experienced later in life.

Excuse me, are you speaking of Jesus or some other God?

How will this God manifest? I mean is He going to sit on a thrown like Zeus, or walk in a garden with us? This something out of nothing or how does this work? Is this God going to appear as an angel and then disappear? Will He appear like a human and show us the holes in his hands? How does this work? Maybe we should be looking for a burning bush with a big booming voice?

Can a god be made manifest and be a universal force at the same time? If a god takes physical form will His consciousness change?

Whoops, I am in trouble of this god is a she and I just pissed her off by assuming she is a male.

I find this the given to be for any individual very difficult to admit and next to impossible to try an overcome, yet this sort of "given" results in us asking question or making an accusation that without a moral system one cannot possibly be moral. — Mayor of Simpleton

What is a moral system?

Just this morning while listening to a lecture about Aristotle and ethics, I got we can learn virtues and we can develop our ability to habitually react virtuously. But that may not be a moral system such as we may find a moral system in a holy book. It does, however, lead to liberty and good leadership.

We have forgotten in a democracy we seek to elect good leaders and leaders are made strong by our willingness to follow. While at the same time our own desire to be an excellent human being should mean preparing ourselves to lead. :chin: Hum, we need to be good followers and prepared to lead. Our ability to be a good human is based on virtues, and one of the virtues is to expand our consciousness so we have good moral judgment. That is not exactly memorizing the 10 commandments, nor praying to a god to make things right.

We can overcome being virtually weak by exercising a virtue until it is a strong part of who we are. We can expand our consciousness by traveling, reading books, going to college, carefully choose media that is informative. We seriously need to improve knowledge of this and then working conditions and salaries so the average person has the opportunity to travel and learn through various means.

A democracy is about enabling the most people to make their best contribution to the democracy. Our supreme court has not been ruling for this goal, when it rules in favor of large corporations and declares using money to get desired laws is freedom of speech. That ruling should make it instantly clear that it means the poor and unincorporated citizens, do not have freedom of speech because they can not pay enough to be heard.

My old books give lists of the characteristics of democracy. Would those lists be a moral system? If so shouldn't that moral system be taught?

The problem with education in North America is not the heavy leaning on SAT subjects; it is a problem of heavy leaning on making the kids do mindless busy work. To give them homework that they can copy and paste from wikipaedia, instead of giving them age-appropriate logic problems that will exercise their brains, not their ability to cheat. — god must be atheist

Perhaps we should have a thread for education? Do you watch movies about teachers who have made a real difference in students' lives? I love these movies, besides having a library filled with books about education.

What has happened to education since 1958 is a horror story, and well-meaning writers of what has gone wrong with education have created a myth that is part of the problem. The myth is about industrial leaders wanting students prepared to do mindless work in factories. Before the first world war, those industrial leaders wanted to close the schools when we mobilized for war, claiming education was not giving them their monies worth, and that the war had caused a labor shortage. Child labor laws were relatively new, and industry would have loved to closed schools and return to child labor. This history is very ugly and well worth our attention because the autocratic mentality that exploits human beings is still with us. It is a history capitalist do not want us to think about.

Teachers argued an institution for making good citizens was good for making patriotic citizens. We seriously need to be clear on this! Up to this time education as about Americanizing the mass of immigrants andpreparing the young to be good citizens in a democracy. The only technology children learned was reading, writing, speaking skills, and math. Our military force was in a huge crisis because the modern war, with typewriters, trucks and such things demanded a trained workforce that could use all this technology and build bridges, repair trucks. For the first time, in 1917 vocational training was added to public education. Later, it was the technology of the second world war that completely brought education for citizenship to an end with a focus on technology for military and industrial purposes.

If you care, please, come look at my books. :sad: I know that is not practical, but maybe I can figure out how to get the copier working and post pages from the books? In my mind, I am fighting to preserve the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. I would like to create a miracle before the next national election.

We have a serious problem in Texas that stands against higher order thinking skills, is behind things like no child left behind, increasing control of education and CORE education. This is the problem of which you speak and is about the Military Industrial Complex controlling education, our nation and the world. The most threatening danger to our country is not forgien. It is internal.

If the law didnt exist than morality as we know it wouldnt exist and we would be naturally inclined towards whichever universal law holds sway in whichever dimension we are apart of. We are moral because it is a universal law, and nature compels us to be moral as an end in itself; Its not out of self interest. Those who are moral out of self interest like politicians are actually not moral in themselves but only appear to be moral. — One piece

Universal laws exist but our knowledge of them is incomplete and most certainly the knowledge we have is not universally known. We are not born with this knowledge, only the ability to learn. Previous to 1958 public education in the US attempted to prepare the young for well rounded individual growth capable of independent thinking and good moral judgment. The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced that education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, as dogs are taught to obey commands. The void in their education was left to the church and now our democracy is in crisis.

While I certainly agree that concern for morality is important, life has beat me down when it comes to being optimistic about MOST people being INTERESTED enough to actually engage and analyze their morals (they would agree that morality is very important to them, but as soon as we begin to question and analyze, they want no part of it). — ZhouBoTong

That is a total bummer! Lets us work on that problem and see how much we can eliminate that in our lives. Some people may not like this but eliminating it in our lives, involves not associating with people who are not willing to think about what they think and lack an appreciation of virtues. Creating some social pressure on everyone to make the effort to strive for excellence and creating a support group that supports that effort.

Dang, I like talking philosophy here much better than in real life! I can be very picky and annoying, and I could care less about my tone, so thank you for keeping things pleasant :smile: — ZhouBoTong

Wow, that is not usually how people react to me. I am accused of being offensive, and condescending and other unpleasant things. I think how we are judged depends a lot on the people judging us. These people usually can not argue the subject but make personal attacks. They are fast thinkers and reactionary. There is a saying, "Do not argue with ignorance". To take care of ourselves, we need to avoid these people except maybe as friends to do simple things with, like go to a movie or play cards. For discussions, we need to find people who are thrilled to shared thoughts and have good virtues. They need to be slow thinkers who question what they think they know and are open to different insights. We have not educated for this since 1958, and this is causing a serious social problem as Germany had when Hitler took over.

I am a little confused here, because your previous paragraph described a scenario where the power was illegitimate and tyrannical. So you agree with all those wives who just stuck with their horrifically abusive husbands until death? We don't think they should have left after day 1? I get the culture was different so that was not an option, but I don't see how that example leads to us learning the importance of submitting to power? — ZhouBoTong

Oh my, you opened another can of worms! Male and female relations, what it means to be manly and a woman and family responsibility and economics. :roll: In my grandmother's day well-bred women were closer to 30 years old before marriage and having children and they did not have sex outside of marriage. Can you think of any benefits for that?

I was bloody horrified to see my daughter acting as though virginity and marriage didn't matter, and then she had a slave/master relationship with her husband, several years after "women's liberation". How could she betray the movement like that? It has something to do with growing up in an amoral society where the young were taught, with today's technology they are smarter and superior to older people. Excuse me, but our society is in a real mess right now. We are functioning at the level of animals, not civilized human beings. I am not saying, the past you speak of, was better. I am saying the masses were poorly educated and we didn't have an economy to support independent career women, so acting on instinct, not reason, was part of the times. Human beings are not born nice. We have to learn how to be excellent human beings or that won't happen.

Surely we all have different opinions on "family duty" and "good"...? — ZhouBoTong

That should not be. Concepts of family duty are concepts of civilization. But then we are not living a shared concept of family, are we? A technological family is any combination of people we want to put together. There are some big problems with that notion. That subject needs its own thread. Warning that subject can be very ugly because when we are not organized by family, how are we organized?

I am happy to. Be warned that I don't accept any moral theory as "right" because it was popular in the past. Any people are "judged" within the time they lived, but any morals are analyzed as completely as possible (they can be "judged" from a modern perspective). — ZhouBoTong

Our democracy and liberty are defended by literacy in Greek and Roman classics and we have destroyed that, throwing away thousands of years of accumulated knowledge and wisdom gained from that accumulated knowledge, just as it happened when Christians took over when Rome became weak. :grin: The best way to learn history is to repeat it. :lol:

It is as Zeus feared, With the knowledge of the technology of fire we have discovered all other technologies and now we rival the gods. We are technologically smart but lack the wisdom essential to a good life.

My take is that moral attributions and conclusions are necessary for the development of more formalized systemic applications of morals (i.e. laws, codes of conduct, rule books...); thus one can logically infer that a notion of morals must precede and system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

I would love to invite everyone to the community room where I live and we could eat snacks while listening to lectures about Aristotle and then discuss them. This is essential to understanding our democracy and liberty and political aim.

The Puritans and Quakers were competing with each other to produce the most Saints. Methodist believed they had a method of manifesting excellent humans. The effort of manifesting excellent humans begins with Greek philosophy, not the Bible. Greek philosophy is about human excellence and so democracy.

Now it is indeed extremely likely (If not almost certain), that subsequent moral attributions and conclusions can (and do) evolve as a result of establised systems morals, but that does not negate the necessity of moral notions to exist prior the the development of a system of morals. — Mayor of Simpleton

Back in the day when we thought literacy in Greek and Roman classics was essential to our democracy, we thought virtues were synonymous with strength. There is a Bahia' women who made and cards and videos to help people learn the virtues. Knowing a virtue is only the beginning of developing it in oneself. To become an excellent human requires knowing the virtues and practicing them. Through this process, a person finds it easier and easier to be a well developed virtuous person.

I can understand the confusion in this as morals systems have existed for such a long time they are part of the given *** in our experience of reality. These systems appear as if they have never not been there and did not require any development (or place value upon looking critically into the development), but rather simply exist and continue to evolve. — Mayor of Simpleton

It became obvious to me that textbooks Americanized and updated the wording of essential information resulting in that information being disconnected from the past, and this results in a collapse of that knowledge because it looses its importance. It is important if God said it, or if our founding fathers said it, or this is the way of the tribe.... how do I say? In our ignorance, we stop valuing the words of the past and get the notion we are superior and don't need knowledge developed over thousands of years in the distant past.

Yipes time! I got to go.

Oh, dear Athena, just one more thing: and when I try to come up with something how my opinion relates to education, is that in relation to all subjects in school, or to specific subjects in school? — god must be atheist

:love: What is important is teaching the young how to think, not what to think. Education for technology is all about teaching them what to think, and Core education coming from Texas is a huge evil that is very destructive to our democracy. Now get in line soldier, for yours is to do or die, not to question why, and don't worry Trump has everything handled, and soon we will have robots controlling everything.. Isn't that wonderful? :smirk:

How it applies to education? Formal or informal? That is, formal education in school, or in peer-induced or authority-induced informal education? — god must be atheist

OMG :love: I may fall in love with you with questions like that. :lol:

Your answer begins with Socrates, and Cicero and finally the reasoning for our liberty and democracy and Thomas Jefferson's fight to have free public education and therefore an educated society capable of having liberty and being self-governing. Jefferson thought that education was essential to having a strong united nation. I wish everyone asked questions about education because I fully agree with Jefferson and if we knew the history of Germany and its Military-Industrial Complex and the rise of Hitler, we might have a better understanding of what is happening to our country. We replaced the education we had with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose in 1958. , and left moral training to the church as was done in Germany. We also replaced reliance on Greek philosophy with reliance on German philosophy.

That is major cultural change and increasing the power of the church to define good and evil, has us where Germany was as it manifested its Military Industrial Complex, or what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order. We are no longer united but we are very divided and our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were. We are no longer the democracy we inherited and defended in two world wars. There is a moral lesson in what I am saying.

If you click on the red letter you will get your quote. You speak of your consciousness when making choices, or at least that is how I understand your words.

Socrates was most concerned with raising our consciousness so that we might have better judgment and before we became enthralled with the Germans and their powerful Military Industrial Complex, we were focused on Greek philosophy and had education for well rounded individual growth, focused on teaching concepts and preparing the young for good moral judgment. This goes with Cicero a Roman statesman who studied in Athens, and the observation that we are compelled to do the right thing and if we fail to do so, the problem is our ignorance of what is the right thing. Not that long ago, even those who dropped out of school in the 8th grade to go to work, thought ignorance was the root of evil.

Morality is a way.

Though it can be pointed to, the pointer would be more in one corner of a square or rectanglar path, metaphorically.

In effort to point out the way, I would need to square it; including each corner of the path. Thus, morality has four definitions.

Try defining morality with one point and there is a regress.

For example, morality is judgement orientated beneficent progress.

A. Excludes that which is good progression, without adult judgement. Can be contradicted.

B. Excludes that which is maleficent but good.

C. Excludes that morality isn't - in a sense - because thinking, morality is, is detramental.

(You may notice a pattern in logic here;

We talk about:

(A) in the sense of social group's defining what's good for their group.

(B) in the sense of what may benfit one does not for another.

(C) in the sense of no morality exists.)

Walking along this path, taking in all elements (the four corners we pointed), the definition for morality is:

Judgement(D), or judgement-less orientated beneficent progress(A), including sacrificial beneficence(B), and zero point alignment(C). — Qwex

I am quite sure what you said is totally awesome, and I do not understand it. For me, it is like poetry created of words I know, but with a meaning, I can not grasp.

Many quaternaries symbolize the world as four elements, or levels. They represent four levels or centers of gravity within us with which we identify and express ourselves in the world. The purification of each level represents four stages of transformation and transcendence taught in myth and religion. — Michael S. Schneider

There is a graph on this page listing this fourness at different periods in history and through different belief systems. The number 4 is associated with mother/substance. Everything coming from the same mother.

I am struggling to understand this talk of fourness. It appears to hold a superior truth to the either/ or thinking, good/ evil thinking.

Beautiful! :grin: And given what you said, what do you think education should be doing?

I think we have agreements but I want to tweak on what you said.

Morality or amorality refers to individual conduct. — Congau

Might we change the word "conduct" to individual "consciousness"?

It would still be morally wrong to kill someone even if there were no law against it. — Congau

It is morally right to defend one's self, one's family, one's group. This defense may include taking another life, in times of war, it is mandatory. In the days of dueling, dueling was considered moral and the way to maintain morals. Not everyone agreed with that, but I think that is a legitimate point of view.

In Socrates' day, there was an argument that justice is an eye for an eye and this was met with Socrates' argument that justice never harms someone but always lefts the person up, and I like the way Greeks included Greek ideas in the teachings of Jesus when they wrote the Bible.

Maybe there is a morality and a higher morality? If we are amoral, moral, highly moral, it is a matter of consciousness, right? That makes morality a matter of education and until 1958 the US had education for good moral judgment. Back in the day, we had a very different culture, but we stopped transmitting that culture in 1958, in favor of preparing the young for a technological society with unknown values, an amoral education manifesting an amoral culture, leading to a police state and Christians being sure we are in the last days. :chin:

If there were a society of angels, no laws would be necessary since it would be perfectly moral anyway. — Congau

Satan is one of the angels, isn't he? People have fought wars over if Jesus is God or the Son of God, but how was He created differently than Satan? That could lead us off topic but confronting religion seems a necessary part of speaking of morals because education since 1958 has resulted in thinking morals are a religious matter not a matter of logic, and that is terrible for our understanding of liberty and democracy. :grimace:

The laws are there to take care of those relatively few who wouldn’t. Social conventions would regulate much of our behavior in the absence of law, and the intuitive sense of morality that many people have, would stop them from being immoral. — Congau

When I was young and learning to drive, I was a terrible driver! I was compelled to take corners way to fast until finally, I failed to make it around a corner. Anyone who has raised children knows they hear the words, but they don't understand the reasoning. "Stay out of the street" does not give the child an understanding of the command. We need to put a fence around young children and we need to leash our dogs because neither understand the reasoning for desired behaviors and they follow what they feel compelled to do, as I did until I didn't make it around a corner. Using words to declare a law, and attempting to enforce them with punishments, is somewhat useful but not always effective. A fully conscious person would be compelled to make the right decision (Cicero). There is your angel if you like, a fully conscious being. Young children can not possibly have that consciousness and even at age 30 we do not have as much consciousness as we hopefully have at age 70.

PS I think our education and criminal justice system suck. :rage:

Your post is excellent. We do not normally think of animals being "moral" but all social animals have agreements about good social behavior and they enforce them. In the book "Science of Good and Evil" this is called pre-moral. It is essential to all social animal's survival to be accepted by the group, and hopefully in the inner circle (high status), so even if we did not have language, we would have "natural law" compelling us to get along.

I would imagine, even in a anarchist government, a subset of the population would rise up and become vigilantes and for lack of a better phrase "lynch mob justice". No offense intended, it just so happens to be an extremely common historical concept all through out history. — christian2017

How full is your belly and how safe do you feel? We are nice to each other when our bellies are full and we feel safe. Hunger and insecurity lead to a very different consciousness and therefore different behaviors. When we are hungry enough, parents begin leaving their children in the forest to fend for themselves. We are wrong to take our civility for granted. But this is different from the point of the prison experiment.

The behavior of the prisoners and the behavior of the guards was the result of how each reacted to the other. As Trump seems to become increasingly an egomaniac to some, we might want to be aware of what happens when a person has more and more power. Any of us would loose a sense of boundaries if we began to think nothing stood in our way of getting want we want. We should be careful about electing rich people who understand power, but not boundaries, for they become tyrants and threaten democracy and sometimes the world.

On the other hand, the prisoner's experience is one of powerlessness. If I can't even use the toilet without your permission, pleasing you will become very important to me, and if you do not have very strong moral standards and boundaries, you will react to the signals of my powerlessness as your power, just like Trump. It is an interaction between the powerful and powerless that drives each into more extreme behaviors.

Good gravy, :yikes: I am now thinking the democrat and republican parties look like the prison experiment.

Ugh, yes it was, although they had (and continue to have) a very narrow definition of "responsibility". They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be :roll:

Responsibility means taking care of myself without causing undue burden on my fellow man. Multiple generations used to live under one roof. Why is it now irresponsible to live that way? I don't like the idea of living with my parents, but it is a happiness and lifestyle choice, not a responsibility issue. If we care about the environment, it is actually MORE responsible for multiple generations to live together. — ZhouBoTong

You make me think it is a fool's game to compare that past with the present, but awareness of people being very concerned about morality is highly important to me. Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think.

For very, very sure, most people did not live in multiple generation homes but were more apt to be driven away by age 14 because there just wasn't enough food for a lot of people, and Social Security is about the needs of people too old and crippled to work, with no one to care for them. Especially girls were unwanted, so by age 14 they were married off to older men who wanted someone to wash their clothes and cook for them. By age fourteen some young men were pony express riders.

The men women married could, of course, get what they wanted from their young wives by hitting them. I read a book written by a journalist who interviewed pioneer people and I was surprised to read of the resentment of a war being fought to end slavery while the reality of these married women was ignored. I have also known some of them. They died many years ago. so there is no chance of knowing them today, but would you believe me when I say they were tormented women who were very glad when their husbands died and they finally had their freedom. Neither a son nor daughter would want to stay in such a home. Except, the oldest son who would inherit the land, had reason to stay. You can bet, the father made a different investment in this son, then other children, because that son was an extension of his mortality, and fathers, the head of the household, held all the power. What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government.

In our abundance, we have very different lives and history books do not convey the consciousness of the past. Marriage was about survival, being an adult, family duty, not love, and sure as hell, not about happiness! Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? I am saying our consciousness is very different today, I am not judging you in a changed reality. We used to think age 30 was still youth. :roll: The guardians of truth are confusion and paradox. It is paradoxical that a 14-year-old boy could work as a man and still be considered a youth, right? A human life was cheap and poverty was great. There is no way a discussion about government assistance would have come up because the consciousness just wasn't right for that.

I say too much but quickly I want to say, outside of the can of worms, we need to know of the Age of Reason to understand what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy. I really hope we can discuss this more.

I agree about the importance of math. Unfortunately, the video is blocked where I live because of copyright issues. However, I have several videos on math and a few books. Not that my brain can do higher math, but the explanations of math get my attention.

Aristocles, Socrates would have agreed with you, and this thread goes nicely with the one on morality.

Socrates thought the sophists who taught rhetoric were immoral. Rhetoric being about power and politics. Rhetoric leading to the war with Sparta which Athens lost.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic, is one of the three ancient arts of discourse. Rhetoric aims to study the capacities of writers or speakers needed to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Wikipedia — Wikipedia

We might think of this time in history as a replaying of Sparta's take over of Athens. Sparta was the first military-industrial complex and enemy of Athens. Germany was was the second military-industrial complex and this time it was our democracy that won the war, but the US then imitated Germany in every significant way. That is both times Sparta won because the way of Sparta became the controlling force both times. This is important because the democracy of the US that came out of the Age of Reason and centered on arguments for truth and the highest morality, is now what it defended its democracy against, and it is rhetoric for political power that rules the day, not the ideology of the Age of Reason that was the foundation of our democracy.

Wow I am very impressed by your explanation! Comparing religious thoughts and arguments with mathematical thoughts and arguments is consciousness expanding. That is beautiful.

What should religion do for us today? Mythology is essential for transmitting cultural knowledge and transitioning youth to adulthood.

The problem with mythology comes with interpreting it concretely instead of abstractly.

Driving on the right is not ethically superior to driving on the left and even evil people would choose to travel on the conventional side for their own convenience, even if there were no law. — Congau

Ah, I think there is a moral reason for having and following the traffic law. Not having driving agreements, or violating the traffic agreements, can have very bad consequences. If the law says to drive on the left or the right does not matter. What matters is having a system of agreements and going along with it, That is being moral. Amorality is a failure to have laws.

However, some dictator's awful wrongdoings free up society after the dictators' downfall, to the extent that incredible growth and prosperity follows.

Hitler's awful rule was followed by the bourgeoning of the consumer society, with more wealth to nations than ever before had been thought possible. Germany went completely democratic, Jews were more tolerated after wwII than before, social benefits to the poor, downtrodden, sick and misalinged were pumped up, taxes took on an equalizing role. Technology doubled every three years, medical science performed near-miracle-strength healing via aggressive advancements.

All because of one fucking bad dick tater. — god must be atheist

So there is hope after Trump or is he just the set up for worse dictators to come?

:lol: That comment got a really bad grammarly tone detector judgment. I would like to know how that judgment is made.

Slavery is moral then? It fits both those categories. — DingoJones

That depends on your society. It is not possible in a society based on democratic principles. Slavery in the US was based on the Bible, not democratic principles. Textbooks were printed in the North and there was hope of preventing a Civil War through education. However, the South became aware of the textbooks printed in the North undermining slavery so the South began printing its own textbooks supporting slavery. The North won the war and that brought an end to slavery.

Unfortunately, the US modeled its industry after England's autocratic model and autocracy is the enemy of democracy. Because of this, the US is not fully living with democratic morality. I really want to stress this point, because we stopped educating for democracy in 1958, and only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. Autocracy is much stronger in the US with nothing to stop it from fully replacing democracy.

I am sure many people would agree with ZhouBoTong answer to my question "Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?"

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

Every child would want that and I think it is what people who vote for Trump want. They want a "Lion King" like the one in the Disney movie and the Bible. A king who makes life good for them, instead of accepting the responsibility of making life good. The problem is children are not moral. They are obedient like dogs but they are not capable of having good moral judgment. Unfortunately, that is now the problem with education. It prepares the young to be obedient but not to have good moral judgment. and this creates a culture that wants Trump to fix everything for them. So they can have want they want without the responsibility that interferes with their freedom. It is also what leads to a thread like this one with zero understanding of liberty and what morals have to do with democracy.

Social customs. Societal needs. — god must be atheist

Is that an explanation of reason or something different from reason?

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted. — ZhouBoTong

That is sweet but perhaps a little immature. The past standard for an adult was a person who welcomed responsibility. That had something to do with our understanding of the difference between being a child or an adult.

The US Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. The American Revolution was about throwing off the control of kings, who saw their subjects as children, and taking responsibility for self-government.

I think I made a comment relevant to your question on a different thread. What is the essence of religion? Is it cosmology? No, we have a secular fully developed cosmology - no religion required. Is it god? No, we have Buddhism which remains silent on the matter. We may continue this line of questioning until we arrive at the essence, the thing religion wouldn't be a religion without and that, in my opinion, is morality. Morality is the cornerstone of religion and religion would cease to be religion sans morality. — TheMadFool

Buddhism and Hinduism and Taoism are not religions equal to the God of Abraham religions, Judaism, Islam, Christianity. The god of Abraham religions are organizationally different from the others and this is very important, because it is that organization that results in the power to force the will of the religious organization on others. The god of Abraham religions and war go hand and hand, with war being good for the religions and the religions being excellent for war.

Morals that are understood as a matter of cause and effect do not require religion. The reason for staying virgin until marriage is it takes two parents to raise children. Institutions are not good substitutes for parents.

A strong democracy demands strong families, and strong families are not dependent on the government, and not being dependent on the government or any other institutions means having liberty. Liberty is not equal to freedom but means being responsible for the consequences of of one's words and actions. We are no longer educating for this, because of the change in our bureaucratic order that crushes individual liberty and power and stands as authority over the people. Celebrating Presidents Day is hypocritical because those men were independent leaders without being tyrants. Trump is independent but also a tyrant who is undermining our democracy.

As weird as this may sound, I am happy to give up some autonomy if it means increasing my liberty. That may sound like a contradiction, but it works. If I live under a dictator, but doing so gives me access to a free education, then I have given up some autonomy in exchange for some liberty. The problem with dictators is that some are awful tyrants. History does not show that dictators are inherently bad. It just shows that one bad dictator can undo the progress of multiple generations. I am not worried about living in a "free society" (yes, yes, only the privileged mind of someone living in a free society could say such a thing :roll:), I am worried about the things I am free to do. — ZhouBoTong

It sounds terrible! Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult?

Do we expect this to change? Or should we just start coming up with a better option than democracy? — ZhouBoTong

What is a better option than democracy? Change is the purpose of public education and should be the purpose of public broadcasting and newspapers. We need a new American revolution to throw out the scoundrels who use our institutions for self serving purposes and to get our nation back on track with the ideals that gave us democracy in the first place.

Do we expect this to change? Or should we just start coming up with a better option than democracy? I actually largely agree with this idea, but I get the sense from you that you are very much in favor of increasing democracy and personal liberty. How will democracy ever work if the masses are too ignorant to realize their power?

Also, if we wanted MAXIMUM personal liberty we could NOT have democracy, right? It would only be a matter of time before someone voted in a way that would limit personal liberty. — ZhouBoTong

Things are dramatically changing. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It is a matter of if the change is good or bad. Rick Steves recently did a program about Germany and Hitler's rise to power, and the show came with a warning about our need to protect our our liberty. We adopted the German model of bureaucracy and the German model of education for technology, and no one seems interested in this. The increase in federal power should have us alarmed. The more the federal government supports industries the more power the federal government has to control our lives. There is much to talk about but who is ready for the conversation?

The way democracy is defended is by defending it in the classroom, not by defending us with a military budget and power that is crushing. Any walls around our nation to keep "those people out" are walls that keep us in. Our ability to cross from one country to another is being closed and controlled by the federal government. You may be able to get a "real identity" card that allows you to cross boarders but your freedom should not be confused by the real loss of freedom we are experiencing. We are marginalizing people as we never did before. The privacy act gave the federal government the ability to track us through education, medical care and banking, but not through the libraries that refused to cooperate with it. The libraries could stand firm against the federal governments control because the federal government does not fund our libraries, and as the federal government funds more and more industry our liberty is increasing threatened.

Defending our liberty in the classroom means preparing everyone to make moral decisions without religion. Defending our democracy means teaching a set of American values. It means understanding we defend our liberty by obeying the laws, and if we think a law is wrong, such as ordering Socrates to drink hemlock, it is our duty and responsibility to speak out and if possible change the law. Our liberty does not mean we can violate laws we don't like, and Socrates agreed to drink the hemlock.

I think we have a problem with understanding liberty and democracy. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a census on the best reasoning.

Jim Hightower is perhaps the best voice on democracy and liberty of our time. Here is a link to google search. https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Hightower+and+democracy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I think the word "freedom" is problematic especially in a population that does not strongly believe a moral is a matter of cause and effect. I prefer the word "liberty" because it has a stronger connection with morality. People with liberty are the least free because they understand the responsibility of having good moral judgement. They agree with Cicero and understand the consequences of their actions and words are what they are and can not be changed by sacrificing animals, burning candles or saying prayers.

As Socrates argued about education being essential to democracy, and Jefferson devoted his life to having a well educated public, because this is how to have a strong and united republic, we need to pay much more attention to what education has to do with good moral judgment and what that has to do with a culture that does not need to function like a police state to keep people safe. We might change our focus from education for technology to a focus on history and our environments.

PS We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

So, when I said there's a kind of morality that's religious I was referring to those moral principles that were plucked from religion, assessed to be worthy, and then adopted by people. The connection between god/the divine with this kind moral code is perhaps best described as filial - they are offsprings of divine morality and the link terminates there for some and maybe most. — TheMadFool

Whose story of God are you using? Do you prefer one holy book over another? Why?

How divine is it to destroy the planet we live on? Whose morals are effectively opposing this? Or do you accept global warming as a wonderful sign we are in the last days and feel happy about this?

Interesting topic. After thinking about it for a bit I have a question...do you think our belief in a more inclusive and egalitarian society has anything to do with this loss? Perhaps an equal percent of the population (or even a little higher than in the past) agree with the importance of science and reasoning, but now the masses have more power in society? I certainly believe that more power for the masses has many benefits, but it seems there will have to be downsides as well (at least in the short term anyway). — ZhouBoTong

The masses are too ignorant to have power. They have extremely little control of their lives and have willingly given up their power, and far too many are thrilled by the idea of robots running everything. And they sure as blazes are ignorant about autocracy being the enemy of democracy and that our lives could be radially different with everyone enjoying much more personal power and liberty. In the US we have become what we defended our democracy against. We have the organization of the enemy that crushes individual power and liberty and we have prepared our young to think this is new and improved and that they are superior to the rest of humanity. They are supporting the most expensive military might in the world.

↪Athena
Interesting point but stating religious morality as the only alternative is a little reductive dont you think. Morality is much more complex than a two path ideological frame work. There are other debates intrinsically woven into this discussion that arent present in a religion only base of morality. — LuckilyDefinitive

Morality is based on reason, or on faith. I can not think of another foundation for morality.

History shows this is certainly true. However, I sometimes think it is the "knowing" part that is more dangerous than the "will of God" aspect. Don't get me wrong, the "will of God" has a long history of convincing people they "know" what is best. But I worry that any moral system that people consider to be "objectively correct" would lead to strong feelings, which have the potential to be acted upon (but I can agree that religion has been the biggest cause of this up until now). — ZhouBoTong

It is the Christian Right that supports the conservative presidents and the skyrocketing growth of our military budget and wars fought without being budgeted, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq. The mentality is also what gave the world Hitler. These folks know the will of God is what they want. They know this by faith not reason.

Democracy is rule by reason. Trump and his supporters are not about rule by reason, and it looks like the end of the democracy we defended in civil wars and two world wars. That is the result of no longer defending democracy in the classroom, and ignoring autocracy is the enemy of democracy and allowing it to control our economy and therefore everything else.

Democracy is a social order that respects human dignity and differences, and government is only one aspect of democracy. Only one aspect of democracy.

I thought Socrates gave his life for freedom of speech and Athens's democracy. He had the opportunity to escape and live elsewhere but he chose to respect the law and the decision for his death because without respect for their rules, a state cannot exist. Of course he could have avoided the whole mess by recanting what he said as Galileo did. Defending his right to say what he believes needs to be said, is a defense of freedom of speech and this becomes a defense of democracy.

I read several comments about Socrates's choice, written by what has to be young people, because they all seem to miss the point, that what is important is not the individual but everyone and the ideal. Sort of like Patrick Henry saying "give me liberty or give me death". It is the ideal and good of all that matters, and we must be willing to die for that. As a Muslim suicide bomber or any of the past martyrs gave their lives for a cause. Human sacrifice is the ultimate price to pay for the ideal and benefit of all. Socrates died for freedom of speech and his democracy as thousands of Americans died to defend their democracy, only all those deaths have been for nothing because we stop defending our democracy in the classroom.

As for the problem with capitalism, that is a lack of democracy. We have autocratic industry and therefore the evil of autocracy. We need to replace autocratic industry with the democratic model and put an end to those evils.

Oh yeah, I know of the The Project for a New American Century. Not a very democratic organization but with a lot of power to control the expense and use of our military.