This is the kind of thinking I find most scary. There is something to be said for conservative values as much as there are for liberal ones. — I like sushi

That could be an interesting thread. I am kind of shocked that we appear to disagree about the need to rethink everything. At what time in history did people think the way you believe we should think? Are you good with justifications for slavery and justifications for moving native Americans off their land and intentionally turning their children against them? How about exploiting the poor to accumulate national wealth. When were our thoughts well-informed and just, rather than something we need to rethink?

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

It would not be my guess, but the sciences that determine facts. Anthropology is one of the main sciences, and the study of DNA is another, and math plays a part in this, too. Many books are written on the subject, and it does not reduce to a post. However, you might want to start a thread about evolution versus the God who made us of mud. I don't think the discussion belongs in this thread.

What have I said bout human nature regarding parenting and growing up that you disagree with?

think this is something we should be more concerned about that adaptation. We can only step forward confidently once we appreciate what happened before us. This is likley why human progress tends to take the form of 3 steps forwards then 2 steps back. — I like sushi

I am not sure what we need to know about the past, but I do think it is possible we are in the resurrection, and it is archaeology, geology, and related sciences that are resurrecting the past, and it is our purpose today to assimilate all this knowledge and rethink everything.

Very well. Sketch your best guess about how we evolved and then insist we stay true to that course else be punished by Mother Nature. — Hanover

I do not just make up thoughts. What I think, is the result of learning. If you think my facts are wrong, tell me which facts and what you think is correct with better information. That is how philosophy started. Coming from Athens, it is essential that we get our beliefs right. This is not equal to arguing mythology. It is science with facts that either are or are not true.

↪Athena Even assuming you've accurately described humanity's educational odyssey from the cave until today in those few paragraphs and you've deciphered with accuracy "what is natural to our species," take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature — Hanover

:lol: :rofl: That is hilarious. Just try to go against nature and see how well that works.

It is really curious to me why anyone would think ignoring nature is a good idea. Lacking knowledge of nature is a good thing, why? Modern people want to believe they are very smart, but I don't think ignorance or denial of nature leads to that. :joke:

Generally speaking I think parents assume the part they play in how their children turn out is vastly overestimated. That is not to say that parenting does not effect them, but the parent's job is most important in the first few years of development. — I like sushi

You are right, and I want to add some thoughts that support that.

Each generation is different. Another term we can use is "cohort". A cohort is everyone who comes of age at the same time. A cohort is defined by its time in history. I am a baby boomer. Most of our parents hated war, and Beatniks came out of that, then greasers, then hippies, and for my son and daughter, it was meth that determined the flow of history. Good luck to the parents who try to prevent their sons and daughters from going with the movement of their time. And is that really what we want? Our lives are changing faster and faster. Do we want our children to cling to the past?

I am thinking of a troop of apes trying to survive hard times do to climate change. Those who are not flexible and willing to try new things are the least apt to survive. It is in our genes to adapt to change, and it is too bad if our parents perish because they can not make the change. Young people are much more apt to try new things, because if they die, they are easy to replace. But biologically, our brains become more resistant to change because nature can not afford to lose its breeding populations, and sometimes the old and tried ways are best.

Sometimes, many years of life experience lead to wisdom, so we should all follow the health rules, including exercise, just in case someone might benefit from our memory of the past and gained wisdom.

What do you, Philosophers, tell prospective parents about how to raise (Old Norse, raisa) their children so that they will be good citizens, good parents themselves, and good thinkers?

So you haven't reared (Old English, rǣran) so much as a hamster, children are the future and how they are brought up (OE) matters to everyone, parents or not. — BC

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

We might want to know something about the history of education. Education began at the dawn of our use of language, around the campfire, when we thought of ourselves as members of a tribe and were not as individualistic as we are today. We have such tribal people today. Our individualism and family units, rather than tribal units, began with farming and owning land separate from everyone else's. Rather than the hunter-gatherer organization, without no concept of separate property rights. I am trying to convey a different consciousness than we assume today. The point is that the first thing we learn in the tribe is how to behave. We learn our tribe's myths and why we do things as we do. Everyone in the tribe reinforces the behaviors of the tribe and the reasoning of their myths. This is what is natural to our species, and I want to stress that EVERYONE REINFORCES THE WAYS AND REASONING OF THE TRIBE.

Much later, the Romans were organized by family order, and the father was responsible for training the sons, while the mother trained the daughters. Eventually, they had schools, but it is not until the Greeks that education got really interesting. Before this, Sparta was communal and had a tribal education led by the leaders and focused on war. Males learned to fight, and females learn how to keep things going while the men were gone to war giving them more equality than Athenian females had. On the other hand, Athens had education for individuals, and later Hellenism was adopted by the Roman schools.

I want to throw in Genghis Khan. He made it unquestioned that his people should never settle down and start accumulating things like the city people do, because the city way of life, with its division of rich and poor people, leads to immorality.

I always think of Cicero’s assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of one’s character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).
15 hours ago
Barkon
194
Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Antony Nickles

I like both statements because both are a higher standard of morality than lives centered on self-interest.

Last night I listened to a lecture about emotional intelligence. I think we might enter this subject with Descartes' ideas of animals being mechanical and of humans as mechanical, like the rest of the animals, but then going a step further with thoughts and emotions forming another level of reality. For better or worse, we can manifest a more complex reality of thought and feelings. There can be no knowledge without language. When that knowledge becomes the written word, that is another step in consciousness. When the written word is shared in gatherings and then with the printing press, it becomes widespread knowledge that is another step in consciousness.

Here is a problem- I have read science must be completely detached from feelings/emotions, and I think education for a technological society has been so prejudiced against feelings, that we are smart but no longer wise. That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right?

What interests me is that the “object” in your examples is the act, identified as what it is without the speaker (though there is the individual to hold to account). We are all able (though some more astutely than others) to judge a slight, an insult, a tone, and what is inconsiderate or provocative behavior. Of course there are tricky cases, and the variables of circumstance, and mistakes (in judgment), but some will take this to the absurd that we can’t decide in any case, and begin to talk about “what I meant” as if it were tied to something inside them. But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at.
4 days ago — Antony Nickles

I want to clarify, I am thinking of everyone, the whole of society, and even things like economics and advertising. :heart: The more you all make me think, the more I realize, and this is why I come to forums. It just happens the thinkers here are better at giving me that wonderful feeling I get when I see a bigger picture. In two other forums I have a negative experience, because what I want is not what they have to give. :lol: It is rather dumb to keep trying to get something from others when they don't have that to give.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, assumed well-bred men function with a high degree of virtues, and could understand the need to do business with good ethics and good moral judgment. Today's advertising has hit a low in ethics, and I think this is having a negative effect on the whole of society.
You would not run into someone's home and scream at people, but we have tolerated the internet and TV advertisers preying on us with unpleasant attention-getting behavior, and we are okay with extortion. You know, doing something unpleasant to others unless you are paid not to harass them.

This is about the culture we experience daily, our relationships, and the sense of power or lack of it. This affects our whole economy and politics. I want to leave my family a better world, so I think a lot about good moral judgment and the enlightenment and democracy that are based on the idea we can do better.

(try to disrespect a marine, or an abuelita). — Antony Nickles

What do you mean by that? I would think a marine might handle a bad situation very well and would go well with my reply to Jack. As I thought of this whole subject, I realized the people I want in my life have a lot of good qualities, and all these qualities contribute to good communication. This makes me want to know about the Marines' training.

My study of the history of education from old books about that history says the priority purpose of the earliest education was behavior. What did it mean to be a good Spartan or a good Athenian or Cherokee, etc.. How were they taught? Your mention of a marine makes this wondering even more interesting to me because it speaks of needs today.

Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'. — Jack Cummins

I like that phrase 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding. — Jack Cummins

I think the people I admire most are those with a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of humor, a positive attitude, good listening skills, and all this contributes to good reasoning. Hmm, after giving this some thought, that is a lot to ask of others, but they surely would be more fun, than those without these qualities.

My thought of people engaging in a war of ideas is, these are grumpy people with a negative attitude, and not even more knowledge of the subject would make them fun to be with. But here is a catch 22. Everything would go better for everyone if we all felt good about who we are, and we didn't take ourselves too seriously, and we really enjoyed sharing ideas. You know, not a war of ideas, but the delight of children discovering something new.

If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement. — I like sushi

Perfect! You used the right words to clarify the thought I had, but I did not have the necessary words to express my thought.

I want to develop in myself the habit of responding formally with better logic skills. I can not do that with people who do not understand the difference and jump into arguments without having enough information to discuss the subject, so they attack the person instead of the reasoning. They are playing an aggressive game I don't want to play.

Ouch, I am sooo sorry, but I think I have some sexist ideas associated with my judgment. I say that because I am uncomfortable with that thought. But I think women have played an important role in developing civilizations, and a man who understands what you said is totally awesome! Unfortunately, there are not enough of them. I do not want equality with the average male. But imagine a civilization that operates on a higher level.

In the US, the Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice, and the spirit of America are female, but we have lived under male domination with ministers telling their flocks that Trump is chosen by God to rule over us. What is going on here? He is not my idea of the dignified man I think should be representing America.
Doing battle in the WrestleMania ring might be different from the negotiating skills of diplomacy.

Nevertheless, I think many other states of being have been lumped together with “being offended” to make them all seem like an overreaction to simply, as it were, being slighted. Obviously, in taking offense, there is the sense of being shocked, affronted, annoyed, or displeased. And this implies that we merely resent our pleasure, comfort, or decorum being upset; that our feathers have simply been ruffled. Thus the pejorative implication that the insult may be simply “perceived”, and such mild reactions imply that the party offended are those that usually “can’t be bothered”, the privileged, the “status quo”, those “easily offended”, and so where is the real harm? — Antony Nickles

I think you thought things out very well. Now I wish I knew where I put my copy of "Emotional Intelligence". It seems to me that someone who is repeatedly offensive lacks emotional intelligence. There is no point in arguing the matter with such a person, because the behavior will not change. It is like telling someone s/he stepped on your toes, and the person snapping back, "move your toes". This person desires to dominate and control, and I don't want to submit to that nor engage in an argument about it.

I think there is an important difference between "I think that is wrong because____" and "You are wrong".
That is so simple, but not everyone gets it.

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages). — Antony Nickles

I did not read all of that but enough to believe people can disagree and remain pleasant. I am not going to fuss over right and wrong, or true or false, but speak of my experience because that is most on my mind. What I read was pleasing, like good music. It did not excite unpleasant emotions, so it felt good like a walk along a river on a nice day. That is what I want. To be both mentally stimulated and physically pleasant. Reading the link confirmed it is possible.

our idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

I was raised by a divorced mother who worked for low pay. As a teenager I dressed in black, smoked, and I was ready for a fight. The first guy I almost married became a Hells Angel. It was important to be tough. :lol: In my later years, I have a different understanding of being tough. But I know poverty and rough neighborhoods. My sister and I are sensitive about what separates us from mainstream society.

Dick and Jane textbooks and later TV and music, influenced my ideas of what to value. In this way, I was in step with my cohort.

My school teacher grandmother was perhaps the most influential person in my life, and I always hung out with older people, except for my teen years. The older women in the Toastmistress Club were great mentors. Everyone should have a mentor. And the Greek gods and Goddesses became very important in my struggle to be independent. They taught me how to be my own hero. Thanks to my grandmother, who taught me the importance of reading.

I've always found your posts to be a model of courtesy and have no idea why you think you might be 'thrown out' for saying so. I completely agree with the importance of manners (and wish my grandsons had more of them ;-) ) I think the more delicate point is, how to disagree with others whilst remaining civil. That is especially important in philosophy and in navigating online discussions. My experience is, I have plenty of disagreements, some of them quite heated, but I try and refrain from inflammatory language and bomb-throwing. But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.)

Anyway - overall in total agreement, and the model of 'paideia' is certainly one that we should all aspire to. — Wayfarer

I have to admit I tend to react and say things spontaneously, falling way short of being the refined person I want to be. So I try to avoid people who bring out the worst in me. It is so much easier to be the person I want to be, when I am engaging refined people who are as I want to be.

This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others. — praxis

Thank you. I am enjoying comparing a past I read about and in some cases experienced, with today, and the talk of the young people who are just becoming adults. Some believe the new young people give us hope. I remember reading long ago that our societies swing from one extreme to another.

I know, as a matter of fact, we have been through some difficult social transitions. :lol: Checking the spelling of "transitions" led to learning today that it means sexual transitions and laws regulating personal choices. I was thinking of the transition to women's rights. That was the big issue when I was young. Each cohort has its defining issues. I think Economic crashes like the Great Depression and more recent recession, and wars were damaging to society as a whole.

But my grandmother's 3 rules bring out the best in us.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. This is about our character; it doesn't matter if the person we are interacting with is the mayor of a bum.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.
I think these rules would resolve a lot of problems.

As long as honesty is not mistaken as bad manners I generally agree. Meaning, I would rather someone was honest and impolite than polite and trying too hard not to upset anyone.

The biggest problem of dialogue on these forums is the lack of ability to read emotions. I have managed to have a couple of video chats with people on this forum and it seems far easier to get the emotional intent across but not so easy to articulate in the moment. — I like sushi

I may be wrong, but I want my last days to be pleasant. I want to discuss things that interest me with those who are informed and are also interested in the subject. I hate it when it appears someone knows nothing about a subject and appears to be uninterested in the subject, but for whatever reason, starts attacking the person who posted.

I like using :grin: the faces to communicate my feelings if I want to communicate a feeling. For sure, we interpret people differently when we think we are on friendly terms with someone. Good manners are important because they work with total strangers, who may not react well to kidding. Good manners are more formal, and that works well when we live in large populations.

I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict. — Antony Nickles

I am curious. Can you give me an example of one of these guys personally attacking another one?

I am really wanting to know about Descartes' notions about animals being mechanical and humans being beyond what is mechanical. That should be its own thread, and if you know about that, would you please start and thread and let me know.

Teachers aren't social workers and schools aren't community support systems. They are for educating kids.

I say this even if I bought into your idea that the government should offer such a high level of support for families. That is, if you want the government to do all this, do that, but don't ask teachers to do things other than teach. They didn't sign up to raise other's kids or fix the world's problems. — Hanover

You seem to think you represent teachers. What justifies that?

What do you think of grade school textbooks before 1958, when we changed the purpose of education?

Sara H.Fahey spoke about Public Schools and American Patriotism at the 1917 National Education Association Conference about why an institution for making good citizens was also good for making patriotic citizens. She was proud of preparing the young to unionize. She was proud of educating immigrant children about American values, and that the immigrant children would learn from their parents.

My grandmother was a teacher at the time, and she felt so passionate about defending democracy in the classroom she was in her 80s, before she stopped teaching. When she had to retire, she joined VISTA and worked with migrant children. Then she volunteered in schools. When she died, I wanted to know the set of values every child learned, so I started buying old textbooks and books about education. I know, from the health textbook, the math textbook, and the reading books, that children were taught to be respectful of others, and to be considerate, and family values, and virtues, and character values.

In 1917, education for technology and vocational training were added to education, but education for good moral judgment and good citizenship remained the priority of education until 1958.

Okay, your mention of gun violence led me to see if the local school shooting was the first school shooting. To my amazement, there is a record of school shootings dating back to 1840. Each one is explained.

I think we need to be more alert when dealing with teenage males. It seems this is a rough time for teenagers and especially males. Young men who have access to weapons may not be a threat, but if they are like Kipland Kinkel, excessively fascinated with guns, bombs, death, and killing, then all weapons need to be removed. Kip struggled with evil thoughts for a long time before he flipped out.

Primitive tribes handled this with rites of passage. Perhaps that is better than ignoring a serious problem?

How to make a child into a good thinker is tricky... Trick them into thinking that learning is fun, or at least show them that the product of learning is desirable? — VagabondSpectre

Learning is a whole lot of fun. My school teacher grandmother had me draw a picture and then tell the story of the picture. She wrote my story and from then on, I believed I was a good writer. She played Scrabble with me and a card game called Flinch, then my uncle took over with Cribbage, Pool, and Chess. :grin:

My kitchen was a great laboratory when great-grandchildren visited. Baking soda and vinegar are amazing when mixed together. Filling a pan with salt water and then boiling the water out, leaves us with salt. Cooking foods that require measuring cups and spoons is a favorite way for grandmothers to teach math. And what can be more fun than nature walks?

Statistically, children who have active grandparents to visit do better.

I can't say that I've ever offered unsolicited advice to prospective parents about how they ought to raise their children, and I'm not sure how well received it would be. My guess is that I'd tell them what I did, and knowing that my children are without flaw, they should take my advice. — Hanover

Pay attention to the child's school! I don't know how we came to holding parents 100% responsible for raising children when it was a priority purpose of education to prepare our young for life and good citizenship. Our children are being destroyed and driven to suicide by their schools, communities, and online activity.

I believe the first school mass killing happened in the high school where my daughter was a student. We were new to the area and needed help because my X had abandoned us during the 1970s recession, when people were losing everything and it was next to impossible to get a job. A young man who needed help stayed with us for a while, as did many teenagers needing help, passed through our home. The school was so impersonal that no child got help.

At this time, a columnist published an article saying teachers should not have to waste their time with poor students. I was horrified and called him to discuss this. He was very proud of himself because so many teachers appreciated what he said.

The young man who entered the school ready to kill, had already killed his parents. His parents were teachers and lived in a good neighborhood, if you want to call a totally dysfunctional neighborhood a good neighborhood. His older sister was a model student and a good daughter. What could go wrong?

The principal was made aware of the fact that the young man was having a problem, and the principal in a school where teachers should not have to waste their time on poor students, mishandled the crisis that was brewing. A couple of days later, several students were shot. I think one teacher and a couple of students were killed. So much for teachers not having to waste their time on poor students.

Around this time, two of my daughter's friends ended up in prison for killing another female friend in a Satanic ritual. I think we are struggling to make our schools and children safe, and I think a return to preparing the young for life and good citizenship could turn things around. Between now and then, we need to be more realistic about what a parent can do, when our schools are no longer helping the parents raise the children, because the schools are preparing our young for a technological society with unknown values. The schools are a very important part of the problem and the solution. Parents can not prepare their children for life in a culture where people do not know values and do not what to help the children.

But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.) — Wayfarer

YES! Our times are a little tenser than I would like. And as I sit here with books about the history of education, and a memory of my grandmother and her generation, I am thinking we might learn something from the past. We don't have to reinvent this wheel, but we need to know the power of education and what war and technology have to do with changing education. It isn't just about me, but the whole nation. Possibly the whole world. Young men learning to make bombs may not be as important as learning about life and our cultural experience of ourselves.

Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?

Begging your pardon, of course. — bongo fury

I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules?

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

Okay in the weeks I have been gone, I was working on a thread about the history of education, and in ancient times, education was mostly about behavior. The best way to present this is to present that history. There is nothing I would enjoy doing more than discuss the history of education, but I am cowering in the corner, begging not to be hit. I want to be more cautious this time. The discussion would be good only if that is what others also want. It just is not fun if the only thing others want to do is prove me or others wrong.

You gave me a lot to think about. I migrated from this forum to the history forum because I wanted to discuss things from a historical point of view with people who knew the history. I gained a lot, but it deteriorated and became so unpleasant I am thankful for this refuge. Rarely have I had a problem with the people who post here, because the people here are thinkers, they are not king of the hill, I have to take you down, players. If one does not want to get knocked around like a football player, perhaps that person shouldn't play football.

Hum, interesting :nerd: . Repeatedly, an individual has made an important historical discovery and been crushed by those in seats of power, preventing an advancement in history for many years. I don't think the same thing happens in philosophy. We get that my point of view may not be the same as yours. We may argue our point of view without attacking others for their point of view. The last straw in the History forum was someone refusing to accept information about what the Twelve Tablets have to do with Roman education because those Tablets are not with us today. All we have are written records about them. The guy had zero interest in exploring what we can know from the records. He just wanted to prove me wrong based on the fact that we do not have the original Tablets. How stupid. What do these guys do? Look for posts they can argue against, even when they care nothing about the subject?

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong?

Chimps and cats and other animals are curious. I don't think a God created humans. I think we evolved from an ape like animal and that we would make better decisions if we built our beliefs on science rather than mythology.

How can ignorance be bliss? — MoK

AI says

"The saying "ignorance is bliss" suggests that not knowing certain things can lead to a more peaceful and worry-free state of mind."

Now add to this that there is a God who wants the best for you, and he will protect you and give you what you ask for. And he will do the same for all deserving people.

Now what can possibly go wrong?

Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil. We can realize that something is good when it is pleasing, and in the same manner, we can realize that something is evil when the person is suffering. Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. Morality, therefore, is about realizing what is right (what we should do, good or evil) and what is wrong/bad (what we should not do, good or evil). Humans are not perfect, judge or criminal, for example; therefore, we should leave room for their ignorance as well when it comes to justice. Justice is the ability to realize what the judge should command. The goal should be equality for humans. — MoK

What is evil other than a word? Like ignorance is an evil, but it doesn't always lead to suffering. Ignorance can be bliss.

Cultural norms whose violation is commonly thought to deserve punishment – here, “moral norms” - are present in all societies. And almost all people, except psychopaths, have a moral sense that motivates them to act unselfishly in common circumstances, to punish immoral actions by others, and experience feelings of shame and guilt when they perceive they have acted immorally. — Mark S

Are you asking if Epstein and Trump have a sense of social morality?

Plato gives us a story related to your question.

[/quote]The Ring of Gyges /ˈdʒaɪˌdʒiːz/ (Ancient Greek: Γύγου Δακτύλιος, Gúgou Daktúlios, Attic Greek pronunciation: [ˈɡyːˌɡoː dakˈtylios]) is a hypothetical magic ring mentioned by the philosopher Plato in Book 2 of his Republic (2:359a–2:360d).[1] It grants its owner the power to become invisible at will. Using the ring as an example, this section of the Republic considers whether a rational, intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice would nevertheless act justly.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Gyges does terrible things when he is invisible, and we are led to believe he is getting away with it, but in the end, things go bad for Gyges, and that brings an end to his wrongdoing.

It is like smoking and global warming. We know we should not be driving or flying with harmful fuels, and we should not smoke, but we live in a state of denial and rationalize what we are doing so we can do it even though we know it is bad.

The Greeks argued about whether something is good because the gods say it is good, or bad if the gods say it is bad, or do the gods say something is good or bad because it is good or bad? What are the consequences? Logos, reason the controlling force of the universe. What is the cause and effect? I believe morals are a matter of cause and effect.

I asked google for what Einstein said about imagination and got this AI response...

Albert Einstein famously said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." He also stated, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.". These quotes highlight the power of imagination in expanding understanding and fostering progress, surpassing the boundaries of what is already known.

Well-known inventors, including Einstein, found the answer to a problem in a dream.

Yes, some inventions and discoveries have been inspired by dreams. Several famous examples include Elias Howe's sewing machine, Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table, and Kekulé's benzene ring structure. These individuals reported experiencing a dream or dream-like state where the solution to a problem or the structure of something complex became clear.

Linguistically empathy implies a lack of differentiation between the two subjects whereas sympathy or compassion implies a retention of the differentiation between the two subjects. — Leontiskos

I love linguistics and learning the origin of words.

What is Empathy? The origin of the word empathy dates back to the 1880s, when German psychologist Theodore Lipps coined the term “einfuhlung” (literally, “in-feeling”) to describe the emotional appreciation of another's feelings. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5571783/#:~:text=What%20is%20Empathy%3F,emotional%20appreciation%20of%20another's%20feelings.

The word has Greek roots

Origin
em and pathos

The prefix "em-" in words like "embolden" or "embrace" comes from the Latin prefix "in-" (meaning "in" or "into"), which is then assimilated to "em-" before labial consonants like "b" or "p", according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. So, "em-" itself isn't a root word, but rather a variant of "en-" used in specific contexts.

"Pathos" itself comes from the Greek word meaning "suffering" or "feeling."

I think we can have sympathy for another without having empathy, because we can think something is bad without feeling the pain.

Like homelessness- I think everyone can think that being homeless is undesirable, but having the experience of being homeless triggers many thoughts that come with feelings. Fear, fatigue, low self-esteem, and powerlessness. That is a little more than the inconvenience and discomfort of not having a home.

I am raising this area of debate with a view to thinking about the nature of compassion. The author of the article also raises the question, 'Does Empathy Always Lead to Sympathy? I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? Is it leading to moral indifference and based on the philosophy of the objective idea of the importance of 'emotional detachment as an ethical ideal? What do you think about the ideas of sympathy, empathy and its relevance for life?. — Jack Cummins

Before the Internet, I corresponded with prisoners. Prisoners wanting letters could put their name and address in a motorcycle magazine. So this one guy writes to me...

"You may think shit tastes bad, but you don't know how bad untile you eat it."

And remember Spock in Star Trek. Spock was brought back to life, and Doc asked him what it was like to be dead. Spock replies by asking him if he has ever been dead. Doc answers that he was never dead, so Spock tells him that he has nothing to reference to. In other words, the only way to know an experience is to have that experience.

When I studied gerontology at the local university, I thought I knew about growing old. :lol: All that book learning did not prepare me for the experience of being old, and there is no indication that our doctors understand the meaning of struggling with pain and tiredness and unpleasant physical changes. They know the words and dictionary definitions, but not the experience.

All that is different from question about

I see this question as particularly significant as so much is becoming 'robotic' and machine-based? — Jack Cummins

That is more a psychological matter than philosophical. Number one, THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE! For our own self-defense, we have to shut down because it is way too much to engage with everyone on a personal basis every day of the week. We can not be intimate with everyone in our lives and hold most people as personally distant as we can, so the checkout clerk is part of the store, not part of our lives. This is way more mechanical than family relationships. We stand on a crowded elevator with strangers we ignore. If we do not learn to tune people out, we burn out. This is especially so for professionals in caregiving positions. For example, I can not work in a nursing home because I can't handle all that pain. I gave up a volunteer job when I realized there was nothing I could do for homeless mothers needing shelter. Even rescue dogs need to find living people. The need is so strong for dogs, the handlers will intentionally give the dog a living person to find.

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world: — AmadeusD

I think if you want me to read what you say, you'd better say it in a way that makes me want to read it.

Interesting. It was Nietzsche and Sartre who inspired me to explore philosophy more deeply. I was immersed in post-modernity at university given my age and areas of study. The humanities in the 90s were flooded with these ideas. — Jeremy Murray

And look at us today. I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. It appears to me that we have pretty much replaced the Greek philosophers with German philosophers.

for sure, it seems elitist, to argue that some people are better equipped to make moral decisions for others. — Jeremy Murray

Why is that elitist? For sure, someone who has been through med school will be a better doctor than someone who doesn't even know the anatomy of our bodies.

I think life experience makes some people better at determining moral behavior than others. If the most important people in someone's life are drug-dealing gang members, this person's moral judgement will not be the same as mainstream society's moral judgement.

Science makes some people better at determining the moral care for the planet, and also can make a person better at judging human morality.

Do you agree that means returning to education for good moral judgment and ending leaving moral training to the Chruch?

I keep harping on this because our present reality seems to prove the Bible right about the end of times. We are technologically smart but not wise. Bad decisions have gotten us here, and this is not the first time people have believed they were living through the end of time. We have some choices: ignorance and immorality, or education and using reason to make moral decisions.

Bottom line, I think we need to talk about morality and why education is essential to our liberty. I have been harping about this for many years. Forums may stress our rights, but our rights require a sense of responsibility, and young people do not seem to want responsibility, only rights. We need to grow up and hopefully grow in wisdom.

In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?
Wolfy48 — Wolfy48

I very strongly appreciate the importance of your question. Making something like eating your neighbor's children taboo may be preferable to laws. For those of us who value liberty, we may prefer taboos over laws because a taboo prevents undesirable actions better than laws.

An authority on this is Edward T Hall

Edward T. Hall's concept of "cultural taboos" refers to the unspoken rules, norms, and behaviors that are considered unacceptable or forbidden within a particular culture. These taboos often operate below the level of conscious awareness, shaping our interactions and understanding of social situations. Hall's work highlights how these taboos can create misunderstandings and challenges in intercultural communication. https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+t+hall+taboos&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=edward+t+hall&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7MgkIARBFGDkYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEC4YgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyDQgHEC4YrwEYxwEYgAQyBwgIEAAYgAQyBwgJEAAYgATSAQoxOTUwNmowajE1qAIIsAIB8QUEZpQ7pA-1Jg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If a genie granted me a wish, I would wish everyone had a good understanding of taboos, why they are important and how they work.

Taboos are social prohibitions or avoidances, often with religious or cultural origins, that prevent individuals from engaging in certain actions or behaviors considered harmful or offensive. They function to maintain social order, protect individuals and groups, and reinforce group identity and cohesion.
Elaboration:
Social Control:
.
Taboos help regulate behavior by setting boundaries on acceptable actions and expressions.
Protection:
.
Taboos can protect individuals from dangerous or undesirable situations, either physical or emotional. For example, a taboo against eating certain foods could protect a community from food poisoning. more at https://www.google.com/search?q=the+function+of+a+taboo&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEEUYOxjCAzIJCAAQRRg7GMIDMgkIARBFGDsYwgMyCQgCEEUYOxjCAzIJCAMQRRg7GMIDMgkIBBBFGDsYwgMyCQgFEEUYOxjCAzIJCAYQRRg7GMIDMgkIBxBFGDsYwgPSAQkzMDk1ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBdBF3mbb-qQD&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

But freedom of speech and freedom of expression? — Wolfy48

What you are saying is like starting a fire in August and walking away.

I am a woman, and as such, I am strongly against media and games of violence and especially violence against women, such as the offensive games I am offered when I attempt to play solitary online, where females are chained to a wall and struggling to get loose. How is that not condoning the voyeuristic behavior and feeling, that some people have when imagining such an act, and what is to stop someone from taking this a step further when we have socially condoned what should be taboo.

On the other hand, I have read some awful stuff in history books, such as tortures and horrific ways of killing people that have been used in the past. :rofl: I was feeling very superior to a male friend who was enjoying a violent TV show, until I realized what I was reading in a history book was worse. I think it would be very wrong to sanitize history.

Now, back to the question, how can we have media with totally unacceptable behavior and not trigger some people to go from voyeurism to a real-life experience? Should we ignore that some mentally unstable people are triggered to act on taboo impulses?

In a class about personal power, I watched a big, tough biker break down in tears when he explained his violent past and how this is a socially motivated behavior because that is what big, bad bikers do. Today, thanks to our misguided freedom of speech, we have policemen who are no better than the criminals. We are teaching that this is what powerful men, manly men, sexy men do. It is how to be a good man and a good Nazi or biker, or soldier, or whatever. This is your wildfire and our social failure to keep the fire under control. That is a failed civilization because of the growing number of poorly socialized people.