↪Athena we should think about the ecosystem and how we can protect and live alongside it. — Punshhh

I like that idea. Our public broadcasting channel is doing shows about native Americans and their understanding of spiritual reality and our relationship with it and the earth. It gives me happiness to think of the Native American point of view and attempt to be spiritually woke.

I would argue that MAGA conservatism is only the most conspicuous example of not thinking because of the complicity of the major media and the conquests of leftist ideology since the 1960s. The left has successfully made the caricature of the white conservative common knowledge. The media says MAGA uses “alternative facts" and anti-intellectualism, and is anti-science. But an honest look at what conservatives say, and think, and do, and care about, is not what the media portrays. — Fire Ologist

That is an awesome statement. Our media has become our worst enemy, and it is my understanding that one of the most powerful media owners is not a US citizen. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it also needs to be held accountable. We have sensationalized our news stories and forgotten or at least ignore our values.

In a small tribe, morals will be kept because people know each other, and the well-being of the tribe is important to everyone. When the tribe is millions of people, everyone becomes anonymous, and the well-being of a group this large does not impress our consciousness with the same personalness as a small tribe.

Religions made unnaturally large populations possible, but I don't understand how they can be maintained with modern science. The religions do not share the same beliefs, and that weakens them. Nationalism also makes large populations possible, but we can see now that we should not take nationalism for granted. When civilizations face hard times, they turn on each other. Being amoral is not a good thing.

There’s an element of what I am trying to say that is tribal for sure. But there is a more raw tribalism that properly arises closer to home, like in your house and your town and your city, and then there is a different kind of tribalism that incorporates the broad differences between nations like England and Germany. America is a good example of the two types of tribalism. In America, there is a real difference between a tribe from Alabama and a tribe from Montana and a tribe from San Diego, but all of them have the sense of being American, because being American is more ideological, or better, cultural, in nature. America itself is cross-tribal, by nature. We are many different peoples, who together form a nation unlike Britain, which is unlike Portugal. — Fire Ologist

You worded that very well. I had not thought the thought of tribal differences, that is not just a difference of people in different places, but also a difference of quality, such as you said, the difference between tribes and being American, which can also be tribal. When I was a kid, the school said we should ask our parents what we were, expecting us to name a European country. My mother got indignant and said we are American, 57 different varieties. :lol: But I always wanted to be an Indian and was horrified when I learned how badly we treated native Americans.

I love all our differences like I love a field full of different colored flowers. I love that my city celebrates the Day of the Dead from Mexico, and we have an annual Asian Festival that used to represent all flavors of Asians, but now is down to a Japanese celebration because the people who started the celebration got old like me and can't do what they once did. That is a sad loss to our community.

But when the Brit (of any color) seeks to save Britain from becoming France or Afghanistan, when he or she seeks to save British culture, he only looks like a racist Brit because he is white. This means the white British man becomes the worst representative of the British culture. Today, because of leftism and immigration, that apparent racism of white British men makes the whole British culture look unjustifiable and not worth saving. It even justifies actively changing the culture of “England”, turning England into a piece of land only, and no longer a culture. So it’s mixed with age old tribalism, but it’s a broad cultural landscape (called England or France) at stake. — Fire Ologist

Are you aware of the divide in the US and a fight for what it means to be a good American and decent human being? Not since our Civil War have we been so divided. Daily, the horrors of ICE are in the news, along with the actions of those who oppose ICE. ICE is behaving as badly as Germany's Gestapo. I am wondering if the US will exist for another 100 years. I don't think it can if it does not come to peace with itself. Too many US citizens do not seem to know that Mexicans owned the land north of the river that divides us. We have a treaty with Mexico that was supposed to protect the rights of former Mexicans, who did not cross the border, but the border crossed them. It seems to me this matter of citizenship is as old as ancient times and was tied up with notions of slavory. A big dividing point between Jews and Christians was notions about who can be one of us, with Judaism being more exclusive than Christianity.

I don't care where a child is born, if the child is educated in the US that child has learned to be American and from there, decisions should be based on the protection of children and family values. Mankind needs to up its moral standing and womankind might help, but the women supporting Trump sadden me very much because maybe womankind will not do better than mankind. Unfortunately, female Christians can be the worst. Whatever, our exclusiveness is a very good subject to discuss. I am glad to know the US is not the only country having a hard time with the instinct to fight for our group and not care about the well-being of all children.

Define what you mean by "lefty wokeness"? AFAIK that pejorative expression invokes another vacuous, right-wing media boogeyman in order to "own the Libs". — 180 Proof

I volunteered in the bookroom at our community center bazaar, and there were a few books about being woke. The understanding of those books was a deeper understanding of oneself, the world, and one's connection to others. They were happy, uplifting books. I just want everyone to know that is possible.

UK, Germany, France, Sweden. All the places white people used to believe it was ok to be British, German, French, Swedish, etc. — Fire Ologist

This statement is not racist but a truth for all humans and has been so from the beginning human time. Today, this tribalism has arisen with indigenous people around the world. Back in the day, there was competition between tribes, and some wanted to be known as "the real people". Some tribes had what we may consider silly rules, such as only people in their tribe could wear their hair in a certain way, identifying them with their tribe.

This is a good subject to discuss. Some of us like to believe we can create a better world, and besides needing science to protect our earth, we need to know normal human desires and behaviors, and the consequences of ignoring knowledge of being human.

There are around 270 million citizens of countries with a king, and this is an international site. Please do not presume that your "we" covers everyone here. — Jamal

Good, you bring up things we should think about.

I do attempt to be inclusive, but was surprised by the Google reply to my question of citizen responsibility in kingdoms. Google says in kingdoms, citizens are expected to do the same things as people in a democracy, and I am unsure how well this works. Right now, it isn't working so well in the US either. I don't think many understand civic duties in the US. Our present president is certainly redefining the powers of the president.

Historically, people have struggled with their governments, but it was my understanding that in a democracy, the mechanisms for change are built in so that change can happen without violence. I think education for technology has left US citizens poorly prepared for peaceful citizen action. If I were in Russia, I don't think I would be so bold about expressing disagreement.

And there’s no reason why you should. From what little I know of you, you are clearly a person of will. That’s a good thing, but it’s not what’s right for me. — T Clark

I love your reply. I also love democracy because it is about our differences and how, together, we make things good.

Strictly speaking, it's a republic, not a democracy. — frank

Strictly speaking, I am female, not a human. :lol:

The Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. Culturally, we have had a democracy with principles to live by, and number 1 is being a responsible citizen. Ideally, our social order is democratic, and I believe our economy and relationships would be better if we replaced our autocratic Industry with the democratic model.

I don't think there can be a republic without a democratic social order.

Curiosity is not frivolous thinking, it is going where your heart leads you. If your heart doesn’t tell you what the right thing to do is, nothing will. Here’s a quote. I use all the time. It’s from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu. — T Clark

I can appreciate that point of view, but I can not accept it for myself. I am realizing something about myself I did not think about before. I am thinking I would not vote for Tzu to be my president, and I would value a man I wanted to be president more than I value a philosopher. It is said, "he turned down a job offer from King Wei of Chu, because he valued his personal freedom," according to Wikipedia. Therefore, the man willing to lead a nation is more important in my framework of human value.

However, we need artists and musicians, and philosophers, but someone better be thinking about our problems and how to resolve them and be willing to take on the responsibility of leadership.

What is said is that American industries were modeled after the US military, whose structure comes from the Prussian military.

The US went through a period of de-industrialization starting in the 1980s. That old military style evolved into something more flexible and, but there are still elements of it to be seen.

And the British have never had an autocracy. — frank

Wow, I thought I was the only one saying the US adopted the Prussian model of bureaucracy and also the is model of education for technology. Who esle is saying that? I hate being alone with the Prussian understanding.

Considering there isn't 100% agreement on what autocracy means, I am sticking my argument about the British being autocratic. This explanation comes from an old book, so maybe our disagreement is because the meaning of the word has changed.

The US begins with a New Social Order. That social order was more idealistic than actualized. The ideal was based on philosophy and the Enlightenment, but the new social order was not for everyone. It was for White property owners, and it was supported by slavery and the exploitation of immigrants desperate for jobs.

Children start to grasp the difference between real and unreal at a fairly early age, don't they? — frank

Around age 8, the child's brian literally changes. The myelin sheath that covers the neurons is completed, and the shutdown of our brains begins. No longer will the child absorb information as they do the previous years. The child will begin judging what is true and what is not true, but this judgment is based on what was learned during the first 8 years. There is no guarantee that there will be a good understanding of reality.

The British have never really had autocracy due to the Magna Carta. — frank

You have chosen of subject worth thinking about, and I am delighted.

Looking at online explanations of autocracy, I see there is disagreement. One source said there are 3 forms of autocracy, dictatorships, monarchies, and dominant-party regimes. I think it is an error to restrict our understanding of autocracy to the organization of the government. Where there is an autocracy, the whole social and economic order would be part of that autocracy. In the US that is supposed to be democratic, the Industries were modeled after Britain's autocracy. We have some understanding of our Industry being autocratic, but our understanding of this is non nonexistent. Would you like to develop this thinking?

You guys copied our federalism. I think you secretly love the USA. — frank

Can we please stop confusing the USA with democracy? The US began with slaves and masters, and the industrial north was even worse regarding the exploitation of humans. I do not know of which federation you refer, but I think we owe much to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois). We owe much to Athens, then Hellenism, and philosophers from that time to the present.

I had a laugh at the idea that the USA doesn't have a king. Those countries with titular kings managed to build limitations in to their political systems, usually for the king to act only on the advice of the parliament. The USA apparently thought that since their king was elected, they could give them more power. It's their undoing. European, and other monarchies, kept the king in a box; the USA actually removed restraint on the executive. — Banno

I long thought Europeans were fortunate to have a relatively long memory of kings and the struggle to gain the power of the people, because without that experience, nor education for democracy, there appears to be no will to be self-governing.

Capitalism based on the British autocracy is not the best way to have democracy.

glad to see you differentiate between economics and reality. — Banno

Interesting comment considering I think colleges fail to teach how to have a useful understanding of economics. Without an understanding of reality, there can be no useful thoughts about economics.

Follow your curiosity. It knows where it’s going—or at least how to get there. — T Clark

What is the value of that? I think we have some serious problems that we need to resolve so our children and our children's children have a chance of having good lives. Being curious about the problems, gathering information, and being creative in resolving the problems, has value, but I am not sure frivolous thinking has much value.

How about Socrates and knowing ourselves and virtues?

AI says philosophy is thinking about existence, knowledge, values, and reality.

I think we need to understand reality, economics, and the best way to accumulate and distribute wealth for an ideal civilization.

How can I think through a thought without breaking my own structure of thinking or undoing my own reasoning? — GreekSkeptic

I don't think I have structured thinking. It is normal for me to think of both sides of an argument, not because I want to, but it just happens. And there is information I just do not comprehend, such as advanced math and government forms. One of the most important things for us to know is how to build a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. I don't see a lot of practical thinking. We had coins that had value because of the metals in them, and have shifted to valueless coins, and amazingly, no one seems aware of why that matters.

I think for most people, emotions determine what they think, not logic based on accumulated information.

I don't claim to have all the answers either - just the right ones. :cool: — unenlightened

:lol: And when I am sure my writing is inspired by God, it is really disappointing the next day, to realize I was deluded.

Attempts to assimilate Native Americans in the US caused great suffering, and today we have to deal with that. On the other hand, the determination to maintain racial separation between dark and light skin colored people has also caused serious problems.

Unfortunately, I can not use AI that explains several ways philosophy has been used to understand the behaviors, problems, and resolutions. I don't feel a need to think on this too much because the democratic principle of equality and my grandmother's three rules are enough for me. Beginning with, we respect everyone. We protect the dignity of others, and we do everything with integrity. This is what supposedly separates humans from apes.

Our morality is in question, and capitalism, based on dominating and exploiting others, should get our attention. Should affirmative action and reparations be considered? Can we imagine a more moral world and act on that?

In some countries, education through college is free or at least far more affordable than a college education in the US. The way out of poverty is education. However, next to ignorance is the bad of elitist education that justifies inequality and contributes to the moral problems, such as dominating and exploiting others.

The problem is that the robot slave is always someone's robot slave. Therefore it is not the robot slave who "pays" you to study, go on vacation, etc. It is the owner of the robot slave who effectively "pays" you to [do nothing, especially productive]. — Leontiskos

It is my understanding that when civilizations had money, their governments put a tax on the property that was the source of income. Associating a machine with a human slave seems excessive. A machine is not a human, and I think it makes sense to tax them, as we have a history of taxing the source of income. As we replace tax-paying citizens with machines, we need to adjust.

When I was in high school, and a liberal education (starting when a child is 6) was replaced with education for technology, a teacher who explained this change in the purpose of education, told us to prepare for a time when we would not work 40-hour weeks because our labor would not be needed.
The obvious is happening, and we seem to be blind to it. We aren't making any progress in adjusting to a radically changed reality. How intelligent is that? :brow:

:

When I said paving the way, I meant pioneering. Like Newton and Mechanics. — Copernicus

I have my concerns about recent political decisions. This might fit in a forum for philosophy if we speak of the importance of attitudes. What I saw in your post was a valuable human sentiment. It is the kind of sentiment that makes people feel good about working together and, therefore, good about their national/tribal identity and the beautiful results that are possible. I don't think those positives are part of what is happening in the US today.

Cutting off grants to colleges that are needed for medical research, because someone uses money to force others to comply with his demands, could be damaging to the US status and its future. I think to some extent, this kind of self-serving behavior of people in high places played into the fall of Rome.

Plato wrote of the importance of having philosopher-leaders who are not self-serving. Funding liberal education and colleges is essential to a healthy civilization, and comparing the progress the US has made with what is happening today might lead a person to think about what Plato's argument.

Perhaps attitude is not the right word, but this is not just about logic; there is an important emotional component. One might even say an evil component. I hope someone can say this better. A leader who is okay with denying people medical care and argues for letting people, including children, starve is a heinous power play. I don't think the leadership of the US today is compatible with Plato's understanding of good leadership.

The question for many smaller societies, just like mine, having any artists, authors or poets around is crucial for our own language and identity. Without them there's no Finnish culture. Without culture, then next in line is the survival of your language and with it the whole existence of your people. In these kind of cases it's totally understandable that the government itself sees a healthy culture. And we have a lot of Fenno-Ugric people as clear examples what happens when that language and culture isn't upheld, but transformed to be Russian. — ssu

That is a marvelous argument. I sent your argument to myself so I can easily find it. I think what you said is one of the most important things ever said.

You're paving the way for future artists with your work and theories which would be used by academia. — Copernicus

Well, during the Great Depression, Roosevelt's way of getting the economy going was to create jobs. There were many different kinds of jobs, including art. Our university library building was one of the results, and we can enjoy the amazing works of art. The huge doors are works of art. Going up a stairwell is a huge mural. Around the top of the building are the heads of the great intellectual leaders, starting with the Greeks and Romans, and more. It makes me proud to see what can be accomplished with a good president and the American people.

Art and music go with math and science, and should be part of every child's education.

Should you also be paid to be an artist even if no one has a use for your artwork?

Who is doing the paying, and where does the money come from?

Should a person be paid for all learning, or for selected subjects of learning? How is this decision justified? This is actually a real debate and not all scientific or mathematical efforts are appreciated.

Here are some things being debated..
https://www.google.com/search?q=debated+science+that+should+be+paid+for&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=debated+science+that+should+be+paid+for&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRirAjIHCAYQIRirAjIHCAcQIRirAtIBCjI3OTUwajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBamkFKRiAFbl&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Okay, but I think we have a problem with that. Maybe reading the book would resolve the problem.

People who believe there is a god experience proof of that god all the time. God is not limited by time or space. God is perceived when one believes that all good things come from God. Then surviving a car accident is proof of God. A flood that wipes out a town but leaves a church standing is proof of a god. You know how that goes.

Or in the Mayan gods, I see laws of nature. For me, the Greek gods and goddesses are concepts and archetypes, and of course, there is a connection between the Greek gods and nature. Do you see the problem in discerning what is real and what is not?

The young man in the cartoon with disapproving parents behind him needs to know himself. He needs to know what gives him a sense of purpose, what excites him to take action. "Know thyself".

In the past, before education for technology for military and industrial purposes, teachers understood their job was helping children discover their talents and interest. This education was for everyone even those who had a hard time learning. Unlike education for technology, which is pretty useless education for everyone who is not going to go to college and then hopefully have a career.

I don't think paying people to study would work, because unless a person is getting an intrinsic pleasure from learning, at best, the person will have many facts but no sense of purpose and meaning. Unless the job requires a person to know a specific task, such as the steps for making beer or all the things that need to be cleaned and how to do that cleaning, if one is a janitor. Then, paid on-the-job training makes sense.

Comparing Eastern thinking with Western thinking is a wonderful thing, but unless one is going to be a professor, a writer, or a public speaker/video producer, there isn't much use for that knowledge. Jefferson was quoting Cicero when he wrote of the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of knowledge. That is a lifelong pursuit, and different from learning for the purpose of earning a living.

Invariant(time) := When the somewhere (its place in space) and the sometime (its place in time) of a thing is a consequence of each other (indiscernible), this thing is defined as time-invariant. We have no perception of change. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

I really like that statement. I used my phone to take a picture of the words so I can contemplate them when I don't need my brain for something else. Do you have any other statements that might help me develop that thought?

It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy. — praxis

If we continue to ignore what Christianity has to do with what is happening, we stand to lose our democracy. To be fair, some churches take a strong stand in favor of the separation of church and state.
But they are not the Evangelicals who strongly support Trump and the belief that God chose him to be our president.

problem the majority faces. — Fire Ologist

The problem the US faces is replacing the education for democracy we had with the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That ended transferring our culture to the young. It ended the non-religious education for good moral judgment. And it replaced the American dream based on philosophy and the Enlightenment, with the Christian Nation. The result is moral and cultural breakdown, and the Evangelicals are replacing our understanding of democracy with their Christian Nation and a president whom they put next to Jesus Christ.

As a TV evangelist put it. Because Trump is so powerful, we can know God stands with him. Trump is our of Hitler because our young had the education for technology that Germany had, and moral education was left to the church. The Evangelicals are gleefully replacing our American dream with their Christian Nation. The worse we become, the more power the police state gains because we are running on their mythology, and perversely, our failure proves the Christians right. We are destroying our democracy because we left education to the experts, and do not understand what it has to do with the growing evil.

Democrats just won some important elections, and I don't think this would have happened if they had caved to the Republicans to prevent or end the shutdown. The democrats have looked weak for a long time, and this must be turned around.

I would not vote for a female president in the primary, because that is not my image of the president I want. I like traditional values that go with my fantasy about being American. I want a president and a first lady who have charisma like Jack and Jacky Kennedy. Calling them our Camelot says a lot about how we felt, and some of us would love to have that back. It went with "Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country". John (Jack) Kennedy.

Those words made us feel important and gave us a sense of purpose, and we felt empowered to make our nation great. We, the people with a good leader, can achieve that. That is the opposite of a president who wants us to believe he is next to Jesus Christ, and we should all worship him.

We need to use the law for charity organizations that prevent them from having a tax exemption if they become politically active. We need to put our foot down hard and stop letting evangelicals run right over our nation. And we need to have a strong civics education. Only when democracy is protected in the classroom is it protected. We stopped civic education when we focused education on technology, and left churches to care for our morals. The American dream got replaced by the Christian mythological nation with their next to Jesus Christ President, concentrating all power in him. TV evangelist and ministers, who support this destruction of our democracy, can at least lose their tax exemption.

Hum, in philosophy, there is a problem with separating facts from myths?

We agree, I think? The Christian problem begins with Judaism, then Christianity and then Islam. They are basically the same religion, tailored to fit different cultures. But we could put some blame on Zoroastrianism and Mithra, coming from Persia, with its understanding of good, evil, and demons.

What we have is kind of like a garden with some invasive plants. Some invasive plants are worse than others because they take root and spread so easily, building on the beliefs that are pretty much universal, like believing it is necessary to sacrifice a human to a god.

However, I struggle with the demarcation problem. I think ancient Chinese and South American cultures knew truths that can be helpful to us today, and I am irritated by our cultural bias. Jose' Arguelles' explanation of the Mayan matrix and Pulsation-Rays holds me captive with a curiosity about what he is talking about and how much of this is compatible with our science. Totally dismissing the truths of other cultures is a serious attitude problem in my point of view. The Chinese were right about acupuncture points, and it hasn't been that long ago when we finally accepted we need to stop cutting down trees and polluting our water. We still live in denial of science, and the self-righteousness that goes with this is so offensive.

I do not have a particular problem with the concept. It is just that I don't think it was well used in the context of the present OP. Your example of climate change and its consequences is good, but I can't admit it when we discuss the Laws of Nature when history taught us that knowledge (thanks to human progress) tends to change. Even Pieter acknowledged that perhaps "sacrosanct" is not the correct word to describe the law of gravity (for instance). I understand that "universal" or "symmetric" might be more accurate terms. Yet I also observe disparities here. The point is that "sacrosanct" is more related to divine or god-like arguments. It is acceptable as long as it does not contradict the fields of humanities and science. — javi2541997

That was a delight to read. Yes, the word "sacrosanct" is connected with a god or religious purpose.
My issue is, shouldn't the laws of nature be as important as anything that is held sacred?

I may be wrong, but I think that in the past, Aboriginal people saw nature as God/Creator, and Christianity came in and destroyed that sacred relationship with nature and ourselves. I would like to strengthen our past relationship with nature and a sense of spiritual purpose by giving the words a supportive meaning. I think many people want that?

It's not a simple question. Of course, I'm always curious about how exactly the person I'm speaking with calls the transcendental. Most often, it has to do with its origin (but sometimes it's different). To better understand the person I'm talking to, I believe it's important to consider and understand their views on this matter. But for me personally, I've given up on trying to name God. 2,500 years of philosophy haven't been able to do so. The likelihood that I'll be able to is very slim. Therefore, in such matters, I prefer to strive not to comprehend matter (substantia), but to understand the properties of the dynamics of the manifestation of divine design. — Astorre

Wow, I really, really like that last line! :cheer: I think it is worth my time to contemplate what you said, and if I have any thoughts to work well with it. The words "dynamics of manifestation" particularly get my attention.

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s drawing a boundary between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature — calling the former mutable and the latter immutable. — Astorre

I have no problem with that. I believe global warming will continue to destroy life on our planet as long as human activity continues to cause the problem, and jumping off the top of a 10-story building will be deadly.

I must admit, I don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

I am in favor of believing we can not violate the laws of nature without bad things happening. I think superstition interferes with rational thinking.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve never met anyone who could explain anything at all without, in some way, appealing to metaphysics or to something transcendent — in the broad sense, to God.

Does it matter to you how a person defines God? I like the concepts of logos or quantum physics, and the Creator is also good. The Aztec gods are so unfamiliar to me, I have a hard time relating to them. I believe those gods are inacting concepts that have an interesting notion of our relationship with the universe.

If anyone is familiar with the Aztec gods, I think that could make a very interesting discussion of the
demarchation problem.

So when you are sorting through many myths for God's truth, the most popular story will win. Not so different from scientists concluding what is true and what is not true by consensus.
— Athena

Well, I think there are differences, actually. Science is not a myth; it conflicts with them. You take the principle of gravity as granted because empirical evidence and scientific research showed us so. I doubt there is no consensus on the physics of gravity. Furthermore, it is a tool that helps modern scientists to do other research. Perhaps it may be a big debate inside complex scientific debates such as quantum mechanics. But they probably agree with something: not labelling their discoveries as "sacrosanct".

However, I strongly agree that myths (Odyssey, for instance) can teach us valuable life lessons. Perhaps, Homecoming nostalgia/melancholia (Ancient Greek: νόστος, nostos) is a sacrosanct pattern of conduct inherent to human psychology. — javi2541997

What is your problem with the word "sacrosanct". It is simply a concept that is too important to dismiss without good cause. However, it can be tangled with superstition involving the gods. But it can also be an understanding of a law of nature. Global warming caused by human activity is destroying life on our planet, and for me, that is too sacrosanct to ignore. I think we are more sure of this than we are sure of what gravity is.

I deleted most of my argument because it was looking more like the Mad Hatter's tea party than philosophy. What is

The Demarcation Meridian — Pieter R van Wyk

? The explanation I found says it is [an imaginary or physical line that divides territory[/quote] What does that have to do with the laws of nature? If something is imaginary, how do we get people to agree it's real? We can't even get people to agree on what is true when the facts are evident.

Who provides such concepts, and how does the birth of such a concept become a truth?

So, at least ideally I believe that all punishments should have - among their goals - the education of who is punished. Clearly, it seems that such a goal can't be reached in some cases or can't be the main goal of the punishments but it seems to me that that these situations shouldn't be 'the norm'. Quite often, it seems to me, the problem is not the 'rules' in themselves but rather the approach to them. So 'fear of punishment' and even 'punishments' can actually be good motivators to learn virtue but at the same time can never tell the whole story. The 'moral code' we are expected to follow should be somewhat linked to what is good to us. — boundless

Immediately, what came to mind while reading your reply is the word "discipline" and the Eastern philosophy regarding discipline.

Unfortunately, I can not use the AI explanation of discipline that I wish everyone understood. However, I think I can use the address to the thought and hope people use it to learn another way of thinking that is very different from how our Western, Christian culture thinks. https://www.google.com/search?q=eastern+notion+of+discipline&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=eastern+notion+of+discipline&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRifBTIHCAQQIRifBTIHCAUQIRifBTIHCAYQIRifBTIHCAcQIRifBTIHCAgQIRiPAtIBCzkzMDA1NmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QX3fg88BV5Isw&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I hope you see this is not an argument against what you said, but a different way of thinking. A well-disciplined child will do much better in life than an undisciplined or punished child of the West. Our vision of a punishing and rewarding God appears to be in the Last Days of this God's truth. I hope we see things differently and fulfill the hope of the New Age- a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny. :heart:

the quote you gave in describing tact was more about finding the truth, the churchill quote seems more about appearances, revenge, and politics than a renewed shared understanding. The quote you described explicity requests people don't offend each other... — ProtagoranSocratist

In this discussion, I am thinking about a member of the forum whom I have chosen to ignore because he refuses to be considerate of people's feelings. He intentionally rejects the notion that tact is important.
This is not just about my feelings when I feel insulted, but the society I live in and my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the kind of society I want for them.

I grew up with a very bred grandmother, and I was attracted to older people who were as virtuous as my grandmother. I experienced these virtuous people, and no one can convince me that this gentile and dignified way of life is not possible. For me, nothing is more important than doing everything I can so that a better reality is made manifest, as it was once made manifest by educated people.

I am thinking many may think I am a snob, so I must clarify that what I am saying comes from my heart. This is about love and caring, and believing we can manifest a wonderful reality if we put our minds to it.
And if I am sent to Hell because I am not Christian, oh well, I will do my best to make Hell a better place. :smile:

What is happening, I think, is that the author of the original post is trying to fit life into logic. At this point, he’s drawing a boundary between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature — calling the former mutable and the latter immutable.

I must admit, I don’t quite see the scientific novelty or practical applicability of this distinction, though to be fair, there’s no mention of God in his original post.

As for me, I have no firm opinion regarding the metaphysical essence of being. Yet I’ve never met anyone who could explain anything at all without, in some way, appealing to metaphysics or to something transcendent — in the broad sense, to God. — Astorre

Oh, but the laws of nature are immutable! We are on our way to learning that. The pagans have always known it. If you smoke, your chances of having serious health problems increase every year you smoke. Praying to God for good health will not get the desired results. If we keep ignoring what the scientists are telling us about global warming, we will learn the hard way that the laws of nature are immutable. Believing otherwise puts a person into a superstitious frame of mind. God is not going to give us another planet to destroy.

On the other hand, I don't believe a God is rewarding and punishing us, or a Satan doing his evil thing.
I am adamant about such things because science is essential to democracy. We used to know that but replaced education for good moral judgement with education for technology so we are on the path to Hell.

Now I must run to the closest second-hand store and find some things to add to my weird clothes because the senior center is having a lunch with a Halloween theme. :grin: :fire: