What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere?
— Athena
'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...

An alternative that might minimize constraints on optimal 'liberty, equality and security' would be a post-scarcity economy which probably can only be developed and maintained by AGI automation of global supply chains, manufacturing and information services.

... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?
— Athena
:100:
I agree we are in very grave trouble!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
— Albert Einstein — 180 Proof

At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof

What good talking points you presented. Have you heard about the democratic model for industry? Years ago I had the privilege of attending a seminar for the democratic model and I am sure that is our way out of the mess we are in, along with education for democracy.

I am confident that up to this point, Christianity has been the worst hindrance to democracy. A healthy democracy requires literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Only the elite could afford that education, so our thinking did not change as much as it needs to change if we are to have democracy. Perhaps Einstein did not have the necessary education if he stopped with the quote you used. He was educated in Germany, right, the nation that became the enemy of our democracy. Public education in the US did attempt to prepare us for responsible citizenship, but in the effort, it Americanized the past lessons and in so doing separated US from the past wisdom, and our Christian history made this a very serious problem of consciousness. We have the mindset that leads to your belief we must depend on a god or AI because we can not figure things out for ourselves.

The US adopted Britain's autocratic model for industry and Christianity supports that. It is what Einstien said is the wrong mindset for democracy. During the great depression Deming developed the autocratic model of industry. The autocratic model lead to not only terrible exploitation of humans and a terrible economic problem, especially when our industry was sent overseas, but it also manifested White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, male privilege that held females in slavery until just recently. The slave-master relationship of marriage is as bad as slavery is bad.

Hopefully, we are having meaningful discussions here that will recorrect the problems, including the problem of miserable families. For darn sure the correction will not be a god nor AI ruling over us.

War is just diplomacy, negotiation, value clarification, psychotherapy, and so forth carried out by more aggressive means.

Joking, of course.

The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult.

Then try small-region government, 2 or 3 nations.

Then try for slightly larger blocks, all democratic, effective, humane, sophisticated.

That should take us out to around 2500, A.D. — BC

Can we focus on gathering information so we can defend democracy with reason? What are the different forms of government? What are the benefits of each form of government? What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere? Maybe these questions that need to be answered before we consider one world government.

Here is one of my favorite quotes that justifies democracy and it may be essential to one world government.

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof

A religious person could not have made a better argument for ending our liberty. However, the reasoning for democracy is based on the human potential and the Enlightenment built on literacy in Greek and Roman classics has greatly improved our lives and this was made possible by free public education for that purpose. Then we replaced liberal education with education for technology, and we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?

Also, life is better and if we think things are getting worse we should ask why instead of giving up on humans.

9 charts that prove there's never been a better time to be alivehttps://nypost.com › 2018/03/03 › 9-charts-that-prove-t...
Mar 3, 2018 — Since the mid-18th century, global life expectancy rose from 29 years (where it had hovered for 225 years) to around 71.4 in 2015.
Missing: gotten ‎| Must include: gotten — Susannah Cahalan

I want to add a thought, which among us would choose to live with our parents and be free of all responsibility except to do as we are told?

↪Marigold23 One question: "Could humanity be united under one government?" Another question: "Should humanity be united under one government?"

I vote NO in both case. Can't be done; shouldn't be done. — BC

So is war a better way to resolve differences?

Why do you say that? — 180 Proof

Have you ever had a problem with your user name for the internet and wished you could just call someone and explain the problem? You know, like in the not-so-distant past when we could actually talk face to face with someone when we had a problem and get it resolved. Since the day of the internet, that was the end of reasoning with another human being to resolve problems. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet but I have no desire to be under the control of AI! I think our faith in technology and failed faith in each other is a tragedy unfolding. I think increasing our reliance on AI is a terrible mistake.

This is why I refer to it as an (optimal) effect of a (beneficial) Technological Singularity which, for me, is the sufficient condition for 'world governance'. Primates like us are mostly wired for – territoriality and forming dominance hierarchies – tribal eusociality, and so monopolistic social arrangements, as you've pointed out, are inexorably subject to moral hazards because our atavisms. 'Human-level A.I.' (or more advanced) will not be constrained by primate glands and reproductive drives; provided we can engineer 'philanthropic A.I.'; it can govern us and all other planetary systems as an integrated whole. :nerd: — 180 Proof

Well so much for liberty. Will that utopia include drugs like people used drugs in The Brave New World to deal with their totally useless lives.

Heck no there should not be one world order. It is much better to stay with wars to determine what happens.

Not that I am recommending silent suppression of speech. I am simply saying that the nature of too much self disclosure on a public philosophy site is worth reflecting upon, mainly for how it may impact on you at some point rather than just those who read it. — Jack Cummins

That is an important warning, especially for those who must work for a living. I have heard some real horror stories about how something said on the internet can seriously damage one's life. Besides our personal experiences are not empirical. I try so hard to not speak of personal experience, but when we experience something, it is very real for us in a way that empirical information or someone else's experience does not have that same quality of reality. And especially when talking about hormones and the female experience or how females are judged, the need to speak from experience is overwhelming!

If gender change meant painful monthly cycles and mood swings, why would any man want that? The way women are treated is not always nice, so again I have to ask why would a man want that? What is their fantasy of being a woman that makes being one of them a good idea?

Positive characteristics of females? I think males who desire to be females to do not have all the facts of being one, and considering this discussion has advanced to talk of suicide we might consider what hormones have to do with depression.

Abstract
The biological plausibility for the effect of sex hormones on the central nervous system is now supported by a considerable amount of clinical data. This critical review guides the reader through the plethora of data, from the earliest reports of menstrual madness in the nineteenth century to neurobiological work in the new millennium. It illustrates through the scientific evidence base that, although the effect of estrogen on the central nervous system, particularly on mood and depression, remains a controversial area, there is now considerable evidence for the psychotherapeutic benefits of estrogens in the triad of hormone-responsive depressive disorders: postnatal depression, premenstrual depression and perimenopausal depression. The article also reviews the compelling data that testosterone supplementation has positive effects for depression, libido and energy, particularly where patients have only partially responded to estrogen therapy. — J Studd & N Panay

Personally, I love steroids! I was given steroids after surgery and I felt so good I wanted to get a job as a janitor and return to life as it was when I felt like an Amazon woman who could do anything. My daughter was horrified and frantically said I should not get the job because it was the steroids making me feel so good and unfortunately continued use of steroids can lead to serious problems.

I also found my menstrual cycles were hell when I was in a bad marriage but when I was in a supportive man, my menstrual cycles were a period of bliss and feeling in touch with the universe. I would say our environment is just as important as our hormone cycles.

I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. — Lady Bracknell

That is a shame. We have so much potential but to manifest it requires education and training. I really do think it a shame to not develop our arete.

I would love to be as attractive and physically fit as I once was when I felt like an Amazon woman who could do anything that was physically challenging. Maybe in another 50 years, the medical community will be able to return us to a better physical condition, but today when us old folks look in the mirror and see an old person, we better be able to say, "I look just like a grandma or grandpa should look" and like it. We must make the adjustment to our changed physical reality. From this perspective, when a see a man who has attempted to look like a woman, I think he is wrong to expect others to accept him as a woman. I mean really, if I were trying to be accepted as a teenager when I look and move nothing like a teenager should I expect everyone to accept me as a teenager?

It is a bit complex. Aging is less complex as we all do it bout the same. But sexually there is a spectrum of differences and a person's voice, appearance and movements are an expression of hormones and hormone receivers, as well as psychological factors playing into the mix.

There are cognitive differences. Behaviour is learned. So no. — Benkei

I am not sure about that. True mammals do learn from each other but I don't think that is true of all animals. I think if we were to focus on hormones and behavior, science would indicate hormones do trigger behaviors. Same as an itch triggers the desire to scratch. And an age-related increase in testosterone increases and then decreases aggressive male behaviors. While a female may be consumed with a desire to have a child and later, for hormonal reasons, may have no interest in sex.

In the US we could really use better sex education. Correct information could decrease marital problems and perhaps increase our ability to accept people's sexual differences.

Those aren't male or female traits but gender stereotypes. You shouldn't confuse the two. That said, it is correct that male gender stereotypes are valued more than female ones. It reinforces biases as people try to conform their behaviour to what's expected and the end result is a lot of sexism even from people who don't intend it. — Benkei

Biologically males and females are different and that biological difference includes psychological and behavior differences. The same thing also manifest homosexuality and all the different places on the sexual spectrum. And men improve with age because their hormones change with age.

When I realized Santa Claus was not real, I was angry with my mother for lying to me. She explained Santa Claus is real in spirit. Santa Claus is the happiness and the spirit of giving.
We can give any time of the year but the spirit of Christmas is something we share together and that makes it a bigger deal than just buying someone a gift. It is special foods, traditions and songs. As one song says, it is a wonderful time of the year, and participating in Christmas is not being alone but a part of something much bigger than ourselves.

I think we have a hard time with spirits. I believe they are real, such as morale, that high-spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. We experience spirits and that makes them real, but they are not materialistic and most of us are limited to materialistic thinking.

Note: philosophy is not therapy and beliefs that make people happy and more successful are not thereby shown to be true. (Philosophy is the enterprise of using reason to try and find out what's true. It is not the enterprise of trying to make people happy or successful or psychologically robust).

So, what claims about the nature of reality - and what supporting arguments - do you understand Stoicism to denote? (Because I think they'll either be banal or obviously false). — Bartricks

Socrates was very interested in happiness and there is much philosophical discussion of what virtues have to do with happiness. Buddhism is missing from this discussion but shares much with Stoicism and those world views are very much about happiness.

A philosophical way to determine the concern with happiness is to ask a person what he wants and then why he wants it. What do you want and why do you want it?

I did not mean to hijack the thread. I just thought that Aristotle was not well represented as a strict Draconian. — Paine

I have totally enjoyed your post and that is why I thought we could open another thread. I am still determined to find what I read that lead me to think Aristotle favored at least some things about Sparta. I want to learn more and your question hit my curiosity.

I like your term "Draconian". That is exactly what I was thinking, that Aristotle was Draconian.
But how can one strive for perfection and not be uptight? On the other hand, he did speak of moderation and the golden mean.

Weren't all the Greek philosophers a little uptight about getting it just right because the consequences of not getting right are bad? And Sparta winning the war with Athens, threw Socrates and his followers into a spin, questioning what did Athens do wrong, leading to losing the war. Obviously, Sparta had to be doing something right if it won the war. This interests me but it is not the topic of this thread. help

Cleary you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You have said that you do not believe in God.

You have also said that you do not think that there could be any other explanation for the world apart from God.

So, you believe a contradiction. That's dumb. That is, you believe something - the world - exists and that it could only possibly exist if God exists, but you believe God does not exist. Jeez. Join. The. Dots. — Bartricks

Excuse me. You do not know Athena do you.

Athena's personality is a very dualistic one. At times she exhibits a very masculine aura; at others, she is the vision of feminine loveliness. Her attitiude changes almost daily, depending on certain situations. She uses her wisdom to decide how she should react in a situation. Athena's duties are where she has earned her fame. Weaving and warfare are the areas where she excels above all others, except in the case of poor Arachne. As the goddess of wisdom, Athena displays her wisdom through various ways, especially in war, thinking out carefully who should win and then aiding them. But she is often confusing in how she can change her mind half way through, a characteristic that she is female. In all of these ways; her personality, duties, and wisdom, spread through endless tales, Athena became a three-dimensional character, forever changing as humans still do today. — Laurie Parrish, Lynette Delp, Alex Klinkhardt, Stephanie Palmer

It is not a good idea to piss off any of the gods, and certainly not a good idea to piss Athena off. Now do you want to talk about ignorance? Being disrespectful as you were in your opening line, is an obvious sign of ignorance. Do you want to try again, or should we just ignore each other?

If your god is believable or not is up for question. However, there could be no manifest reality without logos.

The Stoic contribution would probably be through Stoicism's conception of the "brotherhood of man." The Stoic Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher, taught the equality of men and women. Aristotle thought all non-Greeks inferior. The Roman contribution would likely be through its law and natural law jurisprudence (an offshoot of Stoicism), and the eventual extension of Roman citizenship to everyone in the Empire. — Ciceronianus

Aristotle also thought women inferior. I think most groups of people thought they were superior to all others. It seems to be a human trait.

Roman law of nature is not about nature. However, it was used to give Christianity its form. Roman law of nature took what was common to different people and determined that is a truth. I think we could call that rule by reason because they made the effort to understand who is right about something and who is wrong. When I look at Christianity I see a lot of beliefs mixed into it with Christianity taking credit for the "brotherhood".

You think the only possible explanation for the external world is God?!?

Why on earth would you think that?

And second, you also think - incoherently - that God does not exist.

So, er, you think the external world doesn't exist? Or do you not see the contradiction in your beliefs? — Bartricks

What is God? What is the external world? I believe the universe exists. I think I believe energy continues to flow from the center of the universe but I have not gotten enough information to have confidence in what I think.

I do have confidence that the Bible is written by people and to me, its explanation of God is not believable.

How about a different thread started with the last post because the topic is different from Stoicism?
I find that post requires some heavy thinking. It would be nice to dismiss the whole thing by saying Aristotle was focused on the "golden mean". Not too much of anything. But without more careful thinking it would be wrong to drop the consideration with a comment of the golden mean.

I spent this morning looking for why I thought Aristotle was in favor of Sparta and didn't find anything that helpful. Maybe this weekend I can check my books. This is important to me because in my head is a whole story about how the Roman Church, through scholasticism, used Aristotle to justify its authority. You know like dominos if you knock one down they all go down. I am afraid my line of thinking needs to be corrected.

Which text from Aristotle supports this view? — Paine

This is not an Aristotle quote but it is quick and easy and considering our own concerns about corruption and the corruption brought on by money, We might want to know more about Sparta's relationship with the other Greek city-states. And regarding stoicism the Spartans are well known for complete obedience to military discipline and very harsh child-rearing practices intended to raise children to adults with strong endurance.

Philosophers

Lycurgus of Sparta, legendary founder of the city's constitution
Laconophiles nevertheless remained among the philosophers. Some of the young men who followed Socrates had been Laconophiles. Socrates himself is portrayed as praising the laws of Sparta and Crete.[5] Critias, a companion of Socrates, helped bring about the oligarchic rule of the Thirty Tyrants, who were supported by Sparta. Xenophon, another disciple of Socrates, fought for the Spartans against Athens. Plato also, in his writings, seems to prefer a Spartan-type regime over a democratic one.[6] Aristotle regarded the kind of laws adopted by Crete and Sparta as especially apt to produce virtuous and law-abiding citizens, although he also criticises the Cretans and Spartans themselves as incompetent and corrupt, and built on a culture of war.[7]

Greek philosophy, therefore, inherited a tradition of praising Spartan law. This was only reinforced when Agis IV and Cleomenes III attempted to "restore the ancestral constitution" at Sparta, which no man then living had experienced. This attempt ended with the collapse of the institutions of Lycurgus, and one Nabis established a tyranny in Laconia.[citation needed][8]

In later centuries, Greek philosophers, especially Platonists, often described Sparta as an ideal state, strong, brave, and free from the corruptions of commerce and money.[citation needed] These descriptions, of which Plutarch's is the most complete, vary in many details.[9] Many scholars have attempted to reconstruct which parts of these utopias the classical Spartans actually practised, which parts Cleomenes, and which later classical authors invented.[10] — Wikipedia

Did anyone watch "Hacking Your Mind"? The show is about personal data being gathered and then used to trigger a person's emotions so that the person buys something or votes for a particular candidate. I think we have mentioned how our emotions can lead to bad judgment.

What is happening today is the best reason to follow stoicism that I can think of. If we learn to control our reactions to emotions, we can better control our own brains and be less vulnerable to the brain hacking that is happening today.

Which text from Aristotle supports this view? — Paine

I love that question. I have made a note of it and need to search for where I picked up that information. I have a long weekend and will hopefully answer your question in a couple of days.

I agree that the emergence of classical Greek thinking was a conscious recognition of nature where beings are understood to have come into being according to what they are.

I don't share your confidence that the logic of history is a path from the purely theological to the purely secular. If one is to see history as having a telos, that perspective becomes a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed. That sort of dynamic is interesting to me and has merit in making models but I am not convinced by it as a theory of the world above all others.
seconds ago
12 — Paine

What is the logic of history? :nerd: Can I call in sick today and spend the rest of the day wrestling with the thoughts you stir in my head? I think one of the most pivotal points in time was when Sparta won the war with Athens. This defeat of the most glorious democracy the world had known up to that time caused Socrates to ponder what had Athens done wrong. Up to this moment in time, I think he was only playing word games his peers and enjoying the attention it got him. But when Athens lost the war, I think he took everything much more seriously, and that set the path Plato and Aristotle were to follow. Ethics is no longer just a personal matter, but leads to the glory or failure an entire city/state.

This is over-simplistic but Athens was very liberal with very little control of the individual. Sparta maintained strict control of everyone's life and Pericles had told Athens that Athenian values must be defended in war. We must defend our ideals against the wrongs of another.

Plato takes this up with the Republic and questioning what is the best way to have the ideal city/states. This is, personal ethics are important, but virtues such as courage and commitment to the state is even more important. A philosophy that is political. I don't know how political Stoicism is, but I think we can agree war or getting through a pandemic advances Stoicism.

Aristotle favored Sparta's very authoritarian organization, where ethics is not an individual matter but a state decision strictly enforced. Sparta won the war. Why? Why would Aristotle favor Spartan authoritarianism?

Then Rome conquers Greece and embraces Stoicism. quote

"Zeno taught that a happy life is one lived in accordance with the providential laws of cosmic nature (logos). He advocated virtue as being rooted in reason (the pathway to acceptance of logos) and believed that vice results from the repudiation of reason."

Okay, who has not said that? I think we have a problem if we cut Thales of Miletus and Heraclitus and others with a more scientific bent out of the discussion. One line of philosophy being a matter of cause and effect and focused on what causes things to happen, and another line of philosophy dealing more a personal matter of what makes a person happy. What is good and what is evil and why did Athens fail in war?

"a theory of the human condition of the sort Hegel developed." Yes :nerd:

↪Athena
It is difficult for me to respond to many of your ideas because my experience with these various texts has been more along the line of trying to see a point of view I did not understand rather than forming a cogent view of history and the history of philosophy. I don't know what is happening. — Paine

Hum, I am listening to different professors explain philosophy and I wonder if that is fundamentally different from reading? Part of my thinking includes my personal response to the professor, if I like him or not. Or maybe it is my sex and age that shapes my thinking? For me, this has become a wonderful, ongoing conversation and you all are very important to it. It is more than just learning facts. It is looking at how history unfolds and the different characters who have shaped our understanding of the past and our potential for the future.

For me, thinking we are part of nature and all the secular thinking that goes with that, instead of the religious mythology that is all tied up with superstition, makes a huge difference in our understanding of democracy. The Greek focus was very worldly and about arete, human excellence. I see democracy as a realistic effort to raise the human potential. It is as we create it. Athens is a transition from superstitious thinking, to reasoning based on observation of nature. The gods aren't doing this and that to us. What happens is the consequence of what we do. We are not experiencing God's will but our own great and terrible moments, so we better"get it right" and have good outcomes instead of bad ones.

Stoic women. I appreciate this video.

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=female+stoics#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f56f2efc,vid:puJa6Ls1PGA

:up: I stand corrected. It was my impression that Epictetus, along with Seneca, primarily influenced late Roman thinkers and mores. — 180 Proof

I really don't know that much, but I am learning. Wouldn't be wonderful to a color coded map that showed where ideas originated and traveled and perhaps change the shade of colors as the original idea was effected by the thinking in new places. It is easier for me to understand when I have visuals.

the Roman Stoics emphasized ethics and practical wisdom. — Ciceronianus

How could anyone emphasize ethics more than Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? I am reminded of the Protestants who divided into several different denominations and each one thinking its interpretation of the Bible superior to the others. I have read the Romans were pretty obnoxious with their since of self importance, and these yahoos destroyed the Greek temples of learning. Oh dear, that reminds me of the culture wars in the US with its increasing potential of another civil war and the possibility that the nonintellectuals could do to the US what they did to Rome.

The Roman Stoics are generally believed to have "softened" Stoicism and making it more human, less committed to the perfection of the ideal Stoic Sage. — Ciceronianus

Aristotle thought what separated humans from the rest of the animals is their capacity to be rational. That is just their capacity. Reasoning and rationality require constant effort to develop and obviously not many humans want to put in the effort. However, some of the Greeks thought the greatest happiness was the result of making that effort. In the US today some people are strongly opposed to those who think we should make the effort. What is superior about that? Perhaps you can give us an example of the greater humanism Rome introduced?

Now I will argue against what I said by saying I have heard Roman women were gaining equality. That could make Rome more liberal. Conservatives oppose increasing liberalness while I think the suppression of women has been a draw back to western culture. We are witnessing a political battle between liberals and conservatives now and this seems to be the result of women gaining power. Athens was known for its suppression of women. For many the objection to Jesus was he was too feminine and we know Nietzsche thought Christianity destroys the vitality of civilizations. :lol: Would Nietzsche be a good stoic?

Oh dear, those thoughts seem wonder all over the place without making a point.
1. How could any Roman improve on the Greek considerations of ethics?
2. Is being soft a good thing?

↪Athena

If for no other reason, Plotinus is interesting because he would have been the first to object to Augustine co-opting him as the 'best Platonist'. Plotinus saw himself as carrying forward the best interpretation he could make in his circumstances. If somebody told him he was better than Plato, he probably would have lapsed into a coma.

Before looking at Athens as an ideal not attainable to the Romans, consider that slavery was a big part of both societies. Aristotle took it for granted that society was hierarchical. I don't say that to erase differences. There are many. But I am reluctant to invoke Golden Ages after Plato did such a good job of making fun of them. — Paine

I love talk of Athens because I have realized I don't really learn anything unless I am working with the ideas I want to know. Like being virtuous depends on taking action, so does learning anything.

I have no idea why Rome could not achieve everything Athens achieved. I think the Athenian legacy was stronger in Roman controlled Constantinople, but why? Why did Islam pick up the learning that spread from Athens and Christian Rome throw us into the dark age by destroying the places of learning?

Not only did Athens have slaves, but they were patriarchal and sexist! :rage: :lol: Anyone want to open that can of worms? I think I would have preferred to be a Spartan woman than a Athenian one.

Speaking of Sparta, Aristotle thought Spartan authoritarianism was superior to Athens whisy-whasy liberal ways. Socrates was discussed with Athens since it lost the war with Sparta, and then comes Plato's republic and then Aristotle. I don't think Aristotle would have thought highly of Pericles' funeral speech about how being generalist and comparatively lacking direction was a good thing. It would be super fine to have a symposium with Pericles and Aristotle as the main speakers. That is my idea of heaven. :lol:

I would not claim Athens had a golden age, but it distinctly gave the world a whole new way of thinking about reality and mans' place in it. Maybe some day I will know enough to develop the story of moments that changed human consciousness in a big way. Athens changed human consciousness and separated the west from the east. Do you want to argue that point?

↪Athena I'm not aware of any writings by Greek Stoics. I'm mostly familiar with Seneca, Epictetus & Marcus Aurelius as well as those stoic influences on early Christianity, medieval Jewish philosophy, Spinoza et al. Please recommend any primary sources of Greek Stoicism you've read (I'm familiar with some extant tertiary summaries).
a day ago — 180 Proof

I love Spinoza and would like to know about him.

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature. — Wikipedia

Epictetus was a Greek philosopher who lived in Rome. His thoughts are not so different from Aristotle's thinking and contemplating the golden mean.

I think a lot of that can be credited to the destruction of texts from the closing of the Hellenistic time where we can see many sources are referred to but are now lost.

One of the last to view the Platonic legacy in regard to Stoicism was Plotinus. He wrote polemics challenging Stoics in the Enneads but also included elements that recognized many previous arguments,

This essay by Gerson does a good job of contrasting Plotinus from the 'classical' thinkers: Plotinus On Happiness.

I take issue with his view of a Platonism 'beyond Socrates' but the stuff about Aristotle was helpful to me. — Paine

Your link demands some thinking. My first thought is Aristotle didn't deal with Christians who definitely use the Bible for comfort, and how they make themselves feel happy with a fantasy of knowing God and trusting God helps them in all things even though they may be racist bigots.

Neither did Aristotle deal with today's people programmed for PowerPoint presentations and very focused on crass worldly things, like a Roman, not like an Athenian. We might think of the career-focused young as Rome on steroids and far from the more metaphysical and abstractly inclined Athenian,

I can appreciate Aristotle's notion of happiness being the feeling of high morale that we have when we believe we are doing the right thing but this is a refined appreciation of the virtuous life, It is not the human norm. This subject of happiness is pretty tangled up with materialism. Aristotle defined real as something that exists. Piety is real but it is not matter. Piety is of the mind but does not require a lot of intellect. Or what the heck, we can just be practical and go for money and power and enjoy a lot of happiness.

What do you find helpful about Aristotle? I am listing to lectures about his ethics and may have something more intelligent to say in a few days. I am actually fascinated by virtues and how they can improve our lives. I think Stoicism has much to offer. That fascination goes with also being fascinated by how aging changes our thinking. There was a time in Athens when there wasn't much effort to educate those below 30 years of age. The older I get the more I have a sense of meaning and the ability to see the bigger picture.

I understand, but I think we can achieve the same goal through the use of truth, and I think the results will be better than the results of using mythology. We can continue to story tell but we don't need to rely so heavily on numinous or supernatural suggestions. We can simply extrapolate and stretch real science.
Star trek proposes a lot of future tech which is not impossible. The flip style mobile phone was so like the communicator posited in Star Trek. Fantasy characters like Ironman are not impossible. An omnigod is impossible. Getting two of every species onto an 'ark,' is impossible. — universeness

I sense a strong need to be a little too literal. Did we really believe George Washington cut down a cherry tree and when his father asked about the tree did he literally say "I can not tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree." or is that a story told to make a point about the importance of being honest? George Washington being one of our national heroes; part of our American mythology, the same as some characters in ancient stories were used to make a point. I speak of a time when history was not technologically correct accounts of history, but a blending of history and good storytelling. I want to appeal to your right brain, not just your left brain.

Give me an example of a 'destroyed national hero,' and 'a destroyed cultural aspect that united us and made our liberty possible,' that would exemplify your point here. — universeness

Oh wow, you are fun to converse with and so thought-stimulating! George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and Abe Lincoln walking a mile to give someone a penny, are examples of the American mythology that was transmitted through public education. Stories of Ben Franklin and Danial Boon and others were part of that mythology. Because this mythology was transmitted by grade schools it united us. We stopped transmitting that mythology and we are now very divided.

That's a step way too far for me Athena. How would that be different to calling for a new temple containing statues to a modern manifestation of the fabled Hercules or biblical Samson in the guise of The Hulk? I also have no attraction towards rebuilding Solomon's temple. If I had the power and democratic permission of the majority of stakeholders, I would convert the dome of the rock mosque, Westminster abbey, St Paul's Cathedral, The Vatican, Buckingham palace and every other church, chapel, kingdom hall, Hindu/Buddhist temple, into 'people property.' Units that can be used by the hungry, the homeless etc. The theists, theosophists, royalists can still run them as they do now, but they would not own them, and the main function of such places, would have to demonstrably be, the physical support of those in desperate need. If a homeless person is on the streets, then the local theists/theosophists, would have to explain why they are not helping that person. — universeness

h boy, that is a challenging question! :cheer: :grin: One difference is Athena's temple still stands and was restored but the statues that should be in it are in Briton.

The Parthenon Sculptures | British Museumhttps://www.britishmuseum.org › british-museum-story
The Parthenon Sculptures are a collection of different types of marble architectural decoration from the temple of Athena (the Parthenon) on the Acropolis ...

It really matters that the restoration of Athena's temple can not be complete without the statues because that makes the history written with stones, like a book with pages torn out. That building was constructed to teach the world of democracy and every piece of it had meaning. To understand the meaning that is contained in this temple built to teach the world of democracy, it needs to be as it was.
I don't think that is equal to the stories of Hercules.

I want all the places to be protected for the whole of humanity. I think what the Taliban did when they destroyed statues of Buddhas was terrible. But I love everything old and I would love to restore old houses and preserve a memory of their time in history. These relics unite us with the whole of humanity and I don't mind if they are owned by responsible people as long as our shared ownership is respected. When no one has ownership and responsibility, things get destroyed as the Brits and others looted the ancient world.

I think as a matter of principle we need to respect property rights. This is another subject and if you want to debate it let us start a thread for that. That could be a fascinating discussion of virtues. I would not welcome anyone in my home who does not respect private property. I can say that without a doubt, because people have taken advantage of me and stole from me. We must absolutely, return to teaching virtues.

Yipes I am late to a very important date- sorry I got to run.

Athena I don't really have a formal education. I finished high school but it was basically a useless education in a 2nd world small town.

I have to make clear that I never had any interest in politics and my approach on this matter is not political but still people mostly responded to this post in a political perspective because the word 'democracy' is used and that triggers politics in our conditioning.

As far as book suggestions for you, I don't think I have ever read books on this specific matter but the approach of personal responsibility (change starts from within) comes from many sources, like Nietzsche (poor man still misunderstood), Socrates, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Dostoevski, Zen masters, and many others.

A recent discovery for me is Iain McGilchrist. His work is abundant but very much worthy. — TheMadMan

What are the years of your high school education and what is a 2nd world small town? The date of your education is important because of the changed purpose of education. Before or after 1960?

Do you know what put you on the path of your book choices? I am looking for understanding what put you on your chosen path that can it be used to interest others in that path? I am asking the same question of myself because we have agreements and what in our characters led to us having a similar point of view when we are kind of going against the flow? I certainly despair at our focus on politics rather than having a more Greek concept of the polis and human nature.

I love books about the brain and made a note to myself that I must have a book written by Lain McGilchis. I googled him and found this exciting explanation....

Attention is not just receptive, but actively creative of the world we inhabit. How we attend makes all the difference to the world we experience. And nowadays in the West we generally attend in a rather unusual way: governed by the narrowly focused, target-driven left hemisphere of the brain. — McGilchrist

Yes, that seems an important observation and I believe it is directly related to the change in the purpose of education. I think the change was a big mistake. It clearly is rapidly advancing technology but what of our humanness and our polis?

Bottom line for me when it comes to you Athena is that YOU DO GOOD!
You are reasoning and tracing a path from historical theism, to a democratic humanist imperative.
I am fine with the path you are tracing and the characters you invoke, because, you regularly confirm, that you are not suggesting the gods of the ancients were real. You describe them, as exactly what they were used for, imitation/virtual manifestation/simulation/emulation of observed aspects of humanity and human behaviour and human intrigue.
The only difference between us, in the path you trace, is that I think, that the 'benevolent' consequences of the use of god characterisations, is, in the final analysis, outweighed by the 'pernicious' consequences.
But any small divergence we have in the details of our interpretations of the effects and consequences of historical and current theism, pales into insignificance, when I know that what you DO to help other people, makes me so, so grateful that folks like you exist and have always existed in every generation. May it always be so! — universeness

I am very sensitive to the importance of culture. Joseph Campbell said mythology is essential to humans and when they do not have a shared mythology they make their own myths and use the people they know as the monsters and antagonists. That is pretty heavy and I think destructive. It is much better if we have a shared mythology instead of blaming the people in our lives for our problems. He also said mythology is about teaching the young how to be adult members of the group.

The US intentionally had its own mythology transmitted through education. When we began education for technology we destroyed our national heroes and the culture that united us and made our liberty possible. I think that is a big mistake.

If you understand me correctly, I am not opposed mythology being constructed and then manifested as a culture. I am glad you see the Greek gods as human inventions and based on human traits. Athena was radically changed at the end of the Persian wars when her temple was rebuilt to tell the world about democracy. I think we should do all our power to restore her temple with all the statues returned and put in their places. This is far more important to me than rebuilding the Jewish temple.

Each god and goddess is a concept. We can also know them as archetypes and learn a lot about ourselves by learning of these archetypes. Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D." books "Gods in Everyman" and
"Goddesses in Every Woman" are amazing because with her explanations of the gods and goddesses as archetypes we can learn more about ourselves and also the gods and goddess that led to our democracy.

I do not stand alone in valuing the gods and goddesses. Our forefathers had a mural created in the Capitol Building portraying Greek and Roman Gods and Athena is seen there as the Spirit of America and the goddess who defends liberty and justice. As the Spirit of America, she brandishes the sword of Justice and is the defender of those who stand for liberty and Justice. Athena is portrayed as our Statue of Liberty holding a torch and a book, symbolizing the Enlightenment. She also stood in courts as the Lady of Justice and she holds scales for the balance of justice.

Truths are so elusive and perspective has such an important part in our ability to see them. We can totally miss the obvious without the right perspective to see them. Understanding the gods and goddesses as concepts make them very useful. They are also behind our laws.

I ask you to consider reading the books and seeing if they change your perspective.

We all have to go to Hades from time to time to get a sense of meaning. People who do not go to Hades are totally frivolous and I think that is a waste of our lives. But, we should never go to Hades without the help of the gods and goddesses because it is so easy to get lost in Hades. That is to experience depression or even more serious forms of mental dis ease such as psychosis.

Thank you for being open-minded. There is so much to be done if we are going to save democracy. I really do not like what education for technology has done to our attitude and spirit. So much has been lost from our consciousness. This is the mechanical society we defended our democracy against. I hope you see how your values can be served with a different way of seeing the truth. Being totally opposed to the gods and goddesses is very Christian and very atheistic and lacking in a philosophical perspective.

Yes, I know, Zeno of Citium et al. However, I'd recommended Roman Stoics because their writings I've found best epitomize classical stoicism. — 180 Proof

I think what is important to know about Stoicism is its place in the Athenian attempt to define the good life and how it is achieved.

I think saying the Roman writers epitomize classical stoicism is like saying that Roman Christianity epitomizes the Christian movement. That might be true but the truth has been radically changed. But then I speak in ignorance. I do not know what the Romans added or took away from the Athenian effort and I am curious about that change. Why does Roman writing set our understanding of classical stoicism?

..are saturated with the social and political contexts of the turbulent, early Roman Empire in which they were written. — 180 Proof

Stoicism originated in Athens as part of Athens's thinking about virtues and ethics.

Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3rd century BCE. It is a philosophy of personal virtue ethics informed by its system of logic and its views on the natural world, asserting that the practice of virtue is both necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia (happiness, lit. 'good spiritedness'): one flourishes by living an ethical life. The Stoics identified the path to eudaimonia with a life spent practicing the cardinal virtues and living in accordance with nature. — Wikipedia

However, your comment is supported by this explanation of Brits appearing very stoic. It begins with the French Revolution.

“It was a moment that views coalesced around. The revolution had looked like a great triumph of humanist Republican politics, but quickly turned very nasty and very violent,” Dixon told me. “It reinforced this idea that passions were dangerous, mad and should be resisted.”

Within four years, the two nations were at war as France took on the remaining powerful European monarchies during the Revolutionary Wars. While the stiff-upper-lip concept in its most extreme form was still some way off, it was here that British sensibilities began to tighten. The radical social revolution that had overtaken France threatened the status quo, and this “madness” had to be matched with restraint. — Olivier Guiberteau

And the pupil shouldn't advise the teacher. — Bartricks

Aristotle argued with his teacher Plato and both have strongly influenced our consciousness. Who would want to stop our intellectual growth with Socrates, Plato's teacher, or Platto, or even stop with Aristotle? Aristotle was not 100% right and his notion that the universe circles the earth was wrong and without Nicolaus Copernicus, and then Bacon turning Aristotle's reasoning upside, we would not have the modern world we have today and this reality is much more capable of the meeting the needs of a huge world population than the authority of old.

The Athenians' difference is one of reasoning and questioning and even arguing with the teacher, the authority. Our mandate is to learn and question and argue, always searching for the best reasoning, rather than be submissive to authority that stops progress. That is the east and west divide.

I find great personal contentment in that. My life has purpose, meaning, value and a spectacular sensation of wonderment. I want to contribute to secular, humanist, socialist, democratic progress in everyway I can, as long as I live. — universeness

Totally :heart: we are part of something bigger than ourselves. We need to spread this as religions are spread. I think we can succeed if we bring back the consciousness of the Enlightenment and Athens. For sure Athens was not ideal in all ways but it opened the door to our greater human potential when it gave life to Apollo, the concept of reason.

BUT, In this sense, we are all part of each other. — universeness

So true. We are very much shaped by our time in history. I love to think of myself as a hippy. My mother sang for USO shows and was the ideal pinup girl. My grandmother devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom from the first world war and through the second one. I carry my mother and grandmother with me.

Oh, oh have you heard the saying that when we meet someone we come a little part of that person's life and that person becomes a little part of us?

Our lives are unique, we will disassemble and become 'spare parts' again. — universeness

LOL, I am a registered organ donor, but for that to work, one must die in the hospital and that is not something we can always arrange. Hit me with a truck and make my brain dead and get me to the hospital while my blood is still circulating so my organs can live on in other people. Or I consider my mitochondria that has given me life and dying someplace where the birds and other creatures might consume my mitochondria and give it life.

I think it is sad that we all do not have a sense of oneness with the universe. Those who fear the eternal publishment of a god are the most sad. What can separate us from the universe other than our own ego? If we are willing to surrender our ego then what is left but the universe?

However, I come with western individualism and a mandate to have a meaningful life and that comes with ego. I think that might be a good thing for while we are here. For me, it is a lot more fun than thinking my life does not matter.

I think reincarnation is a possibility and I would choose a different life experience than the one I have had because if there is an "I" it would be nice for it to have many experiences and expand its consciousness and hopefully make it more useful. But if I just quietly become one with the universe that is okay. There will be no "I" to be unhappy about that. Is that line of reasoning logical?