You do what you can Athena, as will I. I would rather be too busy, than be too bored.
My work in education burnt me out but since my early retirement, I now have quite a pleasant, 'fight for what I think is right' / chill out, have some whisky, beer and good cheers, paint, write, play computer games, etc, balance. Getting the balance to a stage that suits you, is what is needed. You cant help others, if you are 'messed up' yourself. — universeness
I think the answer lies somewhere between more help for those on the front line, from AI based expert systems and the establishment of more robust grievance procedures when you don't agree with the actions or decisions of your line managers. I think this would apply to all service based employment. — universeness
That is not necessarily the case. This was a run-down, trouble-prone housing project near the hospital where I worked. It got better since that time. There are many community gardens in big cities in the US, too. As gardening brings people together, so can an industry or reclamation project.
Any neighbourhood can become a community; given the resources and freedom, any well-functioning neighbourhood can become a self-governed political unit. One of the key factors to involve everyone, down to the toddler old enough to remember which weed to pull and big enough to carry a thermos, in the planning and in the work, to the extent of their capability, as well the benefits. Not to do things for other people, but with other people. — Vera Mont
God is both logos and pathos, or rather, order and chaos then? When you have time. — praxis
Logos appeals to the audience's reason, building up logical arguments. Ethos appeals to the speaker's status or authority, making the audience more likely to trust them. Pathos appeals to the emotions, trying to make the audience feel angry or sympathetic, for example.
What are logos, ethos, and pathos? - Scribbr
In the Vedic tradition, the ancient root of yogic philosophy, the concept of God or Supreme Reality is understood in a three-fold manner. The triple function of God, Trimurti in Sanskrit, is expressed as Brahma the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva the destroyer. Each energy has a specific task. Let us examine them. https://www.theyogasanctuary.biz/the-vedic-trinity-create-sustain-destroy/
100%. The entirety of what you have said here is important.
If the stories of the US forefathers are true, they lived exceptionally vivid and important lives. If the stories are true, they were masters and practitioners of a sacred science.
If the stories about the US founding fathers (and mothers) are true, then I have only caught fleeting glimpses, despite my best efforts, of what they knew to be true. If the stories are true, those individuals are true Saints.
Truly Blessed, those people and us; regardless. I still hope the stories are true. I truly do. — Bret Bernhoft
Freemasonry is a worldwide organization with a long and complex history. Its members have included politicians, engineers, scientists, writers, inventors and philosophers. Many of these members have played prominent roles in world events, such as revolutions, wars and intellectual movements. — Callum McKelvie, Tom Garlinghouse
:up: Thanks for your reply! :smile:
I was going to respond by saying something like “this (situation you described) is completely unacceptable in an affluent First-World country… ”.
But that sounds a bit hollow and callous to my ears for some reason…
Would it be acceptable anywhere? Why?
Our Mother Culture’s* answer: “It is difficult to accept, and so very tragic [wipes away a tear].
But we must face Reality, and see how the sausage gets made. However, such suffering is inevitable for those on the primative low rung. Only the strong can stomach the harsh reality.
(We didn’t make the rules! Darwin did). But wait! There is an upside! If only those (natural but backward) people join us in our technological journey to the heavens, then they too will get a delicious piece of the pie!” (A tiny piece, mostly crust lol).
But what are the consequences of following such thinking?
(For it is meant to be followed, and definitely not just theoretical).
Unfortunately, I’m still trying to rinse my brain clear of the persistence of our cultural propaganda, an indoctrination that’s even deeper than party politics. (Deeper because it is uncontested by both parties, and even by most of the ‘fringe’).
There’s an ignorant (and thus quite insistent and loud) though unwanted voice that lingers in my mind, which tells me that those people in distant lands living in makeshift huts are actually just squatters on the property of Civilization.
Not unlike the squirrels living in an apple orchard: tolerated as long as they don’t get in the way of progress.
Then I realize that I may not agree with every persistent thought that pops up in my head.
I think I have more brain rinsing to do, to hopefully get rid of the brainwashing…
(it’s a work in progress).
* ‘Mother Culture’ being a term I find useful, one used by Daniel Quinn to personify the cultural indoctrination that lives in our unconscious and carries immense influence. — 0 thru 9
I am an example of such a teacher, who took early retirement at 55, because I was burnt out because of the education system in Scotland. — universeness
In recognition of the possibility, that it was mostly my mind jumps, rather than the contributions of Vera Mont or @Athena that caused what you considered a thread worthy of maintaining its position as a mainline thread, getting sent to the lounge, where other TPF members have opined, is the place threads go to die. Which at least, has been shown, is not always true.
Perhaps my 'sorry' was more of a recognition of a possibility that 'influenced' @Jamal's action, rather than an aspect of my thought processes that I sometimes regret. I consider my 'butterfly mind,' a great asset in the main. — universeness
I appreciate the love. That was a nice surprise. — Bret Bernhoft
Nature is infinitely more cruel than any human could be. :smirk: — praxis
You're quite wrong about this. Most scientific and technical innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Historically, Christianity has been and still is a patron of sciences.
Religions deliberately use heratics (e.g., "the Bible says there will be people who reject God and they are evil") to shore up group identity by defining what they are not. It is a very effective tactic and that's why it is so widely used. Indeed, it's such an effective tactic that no one can get off it.
I have no idea of what you're talking about here.
I suggest that you seriously consider what the actual purpose of religion is and why it exists. Also, consider if there's a difference between spirituality and religion.
I think if Orwell could have imagined an artificial general intelligence in 1949 his book 1984 would have been a bit different. Can you imagine the power of media manipulation and surveillance it could have? We appear to be rapidly approaching AGI and those who develop it, the excessively wealthy, will be in control. — praxis
This is a crucial question.
And because it seems difficult to not think it sounds like a naïve question or adopt a jaded, cynical, or pessimistic attitude towards it, may illustrate how low our expectations have slid.
A culture that can’t cover such a basic need is in trouble. (Probably not breaking news to anyone… ) — 0 thru 9
I pointed out that a religion is not "as we make it". It's highly dogmatic by nature, in other words, and when revisions are made it's by religious leaders. Followers are not free to make up their own beliefs and promote them within a religion. That would be considered heretical. — praxis
I'm aware of various of conceptions of God, some very unlike the one depicted in the Bible. I see no reason why an atheist would be unable to consider an inhuman God. Indeed, the God depicted in the Bible strikes me as extremely inhuman.
Abrahamic religions most certainly do not have a concept that would lead to scientific thinking. they do not have a concept of a Prime Mover or logos. Their brains have zero thought patterns for thinking in such terms. I am not sure that is true of Hinduism or Buddhism. Buddhism can be very different from place to place. Some regions are more superstitious than others. And of course, some understanding of Hinduism is very superstitious and the highest level of thinking is patterned for logic and abstract thinking and therefore philosophical, the Siamese twin of science.Also, religions don't all agree on logos and the prime mover. There is no prime mover in Buddhism, for instance, and they'd consider the dualism inherent in logos an expression of ignorance.
It doesn't make any sense to me why an atheist would be unable to discuss the notion of god as a force of nature with no human qualities. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I was responding to your claim about a religion. Of course, individuals can have their own spiritual experiences and beliefs.
No, that would be a Theocracy.
That is not true of a democracy because the damn God is the prime mover, logos, the laws of nature. Excuse my pagan emotive language but there we go with the merry-go-round. Who gets to define God? You just threw the prime mover and logos out the window and destroyed the reasoning of democracy. Can we discover the laws of the universe and base our laws on such knowledge? Isn't that fundamental to democracy?Theocracy-- a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
"his ambition is to lead a worldwide theocracy"
Moral, is a matter of cause and effect. When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral.
— Athena
How would this understanding apply to something like abortion? I think that for any normal person abortion 'feels' wrong, so one consequence of it is a bad feeling. That indicates that it's immoral, according to the cause & effect view. On the other hand, studies indicate that legalizing abortion reduces crime/poverty, a good consequence.
Things become less clear when it comes to personal rights, authority, and tradition. The values that shape our personal and social identities often disagree on the consequences of abortion. — praxis
In the case of ancient Athens, abortion was not forbidden by law. However, this right was not directed at the woman and her sovereignty over her body but at the rights of the father of the child she was carrying (Flacelière, 1971).May 19, 2023
Ancient Athenian Women and the issue of abortion
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/archaeology-classics-and-egyptology/blog/2023/ancient-athenian-women-abortion/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20ancient,carrying%20(Flaceli%C3%A8re%2C%201971).
I would first, again clearly state, my lack of academic qualifications in philosophy. — universeness
Plato and Socrates believed these teachers and their rhetorical teachings were dangerous because they promised anyone the ability to make compelling arguments in courts and the assembly without a clear sense of the values that should guide this kind of speech.
Chapter 2: The “Origins” of Rhetorical Theory
https://open.lib.umn.edu/rhetoricaltheory/chapter/chapter-2/#:~:text=Plato%20and%20Socrates%20believed%20these,guide%20this%20kind%20of%20speech.
That being said, there will be those who haven't even noticed it, tucked away as it is.
I haven't read it all. Only sampled a few pages. That was enough for me to 'pipe in'.
I felt the need to question. But that's me being me. Avoiding housework. — Amity
Yes, I agree. — Vera Mont
Your generalised historical description of those events are accurate and you know I fully agree that they cannot be justified. My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? I would also say to Athena, that I think such improvements in general enlightenment, are happening, despite regressive god posit influences or old Greco/Roman fables. My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few. — universeness
Thomas Jefferson is a favorite American hero of mine. His time on the planet was a special period of human history. So it's interesting that you would mention his definition of pursuing happiness in relationship to the non-material.
In terms of a more robust historical type of education, I'm aware that medieval universities taught something known as the "quadrivium". Which was the effort to create well-rounded and balanced thinkers by focusing on arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music; cosmic languages. Today, as you point out, we are limited in our learning; at least when compared to the past.
So it is indeed the responsibility of the individual to seek out knowledge and wisdom, in order to find this sacred middle space. — Bret Bernhoft
They were rights under American law. You have no power to rescind them, and they continue to go unpunished. Indeed, many of the fortunes acquired then, by those methods, continue in the possession of similar people through inheritance and consolidation. The privilege accruing to those robber barons is still enjoyed by their descendants. — Vera Mont
Horsefeathers! When you kill someone they end up dead - you can't fail to notice. You can't not know that someone chained up in the damp, dark, rat-infested cargo hold of a ship is unhappy. You don't whip them to make them feel better: you do it to hurt them.
People were not any dumber than we are. Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. And morality wasn't invented in 400BCE Athens: stone age people knew right and wrong. They also knew that what is detrimental to one person may benefit another, so as long as the benefit is to them and the harm - no matter how much or how grievous a harm - is to a designated scapegoat, it's fine.
People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line?
Much worse, they very often go out of their way to do harm when they have nothing to gain, out of hate, fear, resentment, to satisfy a lust, or simply for entertainment. — Vera Mont
Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it.
— Athena
No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow. — praxis
Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter.
— Athena
The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.
There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith — Webster Dictionary
My disagreement with philosophical Materialism is that it ignores or trivializes the immaterial power that allows homo sapiens to post on forums like this. — Gnomon
Unfortunately, Logos and Prime Mover might be rejected by Materialists*1 as unprovable Transcendent beings or forces. For me that's not a problem, because they are merely hypothetical philosophical conjectures (thought experiments) or Axioms*2, with no need for empirical proof, only logical consistency. And, since they have no "favorite people", they provide no reason for slavish religious worship. They also have no need to "violate" natural laws, since they are essentially the LawMakers. :smile: — Gnomon
"We" - white protestant males - had freedom to kill and displace Indians, extirpate entire species of plant and animal, blast holes in mountains, clear-cut hillsides, drain swamps, divert and dam rivers, disrupt ecological balance, claim land and mineral rights. — Vera Mont
Sure... assuming there is an eventuality in store for any humans at all. I'm quite convinced there isn't one for the united states of America... unless, of course, it's reconfigured into several separate unions. The current arrangement isn't working and has never worked for more than a few decades at a time, and even in those periods, for only part of the population. — Vera Mont
I know that was one thing one person brought up in the conversation once. I didn't realize that was the central focus. Is it?
"I don't know, but do you want to discuss sacred math?"
— Athena
Not particularly. — flannel jesus
Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? — flannel jesus
Why would a materialist have a hard time accepting an unknown energy? I'm quite certain that every materialist I know is completely comfortable with the idea that we haven't discovered all that's true about the universe.
I fear you've built up this very narrow idea of what materialists think, that isn't actually what materialists think. — flannel jesus
So, my philosophical curiosity naturally wonders about the original Source of that all-important creative & animating power. I don't imagine the origin of the world as a biblical Genesis, but Plato/Aristotle's abstract notion of LOGOS & Prime Mover suits me for philosophical purposes. That gives me a point from which to reason about our temporary sojourn in a habitat suitable for matter-transcending living & thinking creatures. :smile: — Gnomon
Doesn't seem to follow though, does it? That "spiritual dimension" sneaks into the picture. Is that "spiritual dimension" a part of Nature? If so, a Naturalist may accept it as a part of reality, like everything else, including energy. The question would then seem to be whether if it's part of the Universe it is corporeal. — Ciceronianus
I meant it as refutation of the nice popular mythology of the rugged individualist, Davy Crockett spirit of America: barely constrained personal freedom; unbounded national ambition.
Of course it was never true: of the 2.5 million American citizens, only adult white unindentured males had any freedom at all, and for most of those men, freedom was limited by economic and social constraints.
The notion of individual liberty was false then and is even more false now, but people keep waving flags and supporting antisocial policies in defense of the illusion.
It's nothing to do Gilgamesh or ancient Mesopotamia. — Vera Mont
Yes. Absolutely. In my mind there is little reason to exclude the thinking, intuition and conclusions of others outright; especially if the work being done is about balance and hybridizing extremes. Being able to challenge myself with diverse sources of knowledge does indeed make living a wondrous thing. This is a hallmark of a good life, in my observations. — Bret Bernhoft
Both leaf and stone are spinning on the surface of a giant sphere at a thousand miles per hour. They don't fly off of the earth because its mass is so great that it pulls them towards it. The earth is spinning around a star. The solar system is spinning in a galaxy. The galaxy is expanding with the universe... Going the other way, there's a bunch of atomic and quantum movement too, so I'm told. — praxis
Is without purpose, if that's all you do! I did a lot of weekend pub/disco, adventure/indulgence etc but I worked hard during the rest of the week and managed to complete an apprenticeship, study at night schools, complete an honours degree course at uni, a postgrad in education and had a 30 year teaching career. I was never unfaithful to anyone in that time and only had two serious relationships in my life. I was engaged twice but both relationships failed. No kids, thank goodness. I am not against having kids but I agree that it's important to have as stable and as strong a support system established, as you can possibly achieve, before you do. Including contingency plans.
The trouble with the main quote above, is that the 'god' label is so soiled with woo woo, and pernicious scriptures, that it's use in any paragraph, which is designed to make a moral statement or give moral advice to others, simply totally fails, imo.
I would reword the quote above as:
"A person of grace is a person of strength and humility. Human grace, is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being, but a human potential. I believe we are healthier with a concept of grace, that brings out the best in us. This is possible without superstition. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not."
The Greeks had their three charities/graces. Three goddess inventions. Wiki describes them.
Aglaia represented elegance, brightness and splendor
Thalia represented youth, beauty and good cheer
Euphrosyne represented mirth and or joyfulness
Education should utterly remove the need for such child like notions, imo.
Notions of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma etc, are absolutely no different to these three Greek metaphors, for desired human states/ predilections. — universeness
I personally wouldn't word it as "energy is material", but I'm not prepared to say that's explicitly wrong either. In any case, it's clear that a contemporary "materialist" world view includes energy. — flannel jesus
Astronomers theorize that the faster expansion rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pulling galaxies apart. One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter | Science Mission Directorate — NASA
It was about how Americans regard individual freedom of action and what they're willing to sacrifice for it. — Vera Mont
Gilgamesh, the best known of all ancient Mesopotamian heroes. Numerous tales in the Akkadian language have been told about Gilgamesh, and the whole collection has been described as an odyssey—the odyssey of a king who did not want to die.
Gilgamesh | Epic, Summary, & Facts - Britannica — Britannica
"Everything" which causes changes is material, ergo "energy" is material, no? — 180 Proof
https://grove.ccsd59.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2015/03/1.-Matter-Vs.-Energy-.pdfWhat are the differences between mater and energy?
MATTER
• Matter has mass.
• Matter takes up space (called volume).
Thus, matter is anything that has mass and takes up space.
ENERGY
• Energy is not like matter.
• Energy does not have mass.
• Energy does not take up space.
• Energy MOVES matter.
Therefore, energy is the ability to make things move.