thank you. I will

I think people know a lot in the West. Or anywhere on the planet for that matter. It's just that we sometimes don't apply that knowledge all too well. We're still human, after all.

And yes, the link between science and philosophy still seems obscure to me but I'm getting there — TaySan

I do not have so much faith in what the West knows. We have been specialized and our knowledge seems very limited to our specialty and our personal lives. In the US we are much more apt to be Christian and to know nothing of philosophy! So we know our specialty, our personal lives, and how our own particular church interprets the Bible. That is not knowing a lot. But instead leads to a lot of conflicts because individually, we know so little.

I guess you have to make the case that moral statements like this are justifiable epistemologically in whatever philosophical/spiritual system you settle on. Should be easy to do if you are a Christian (although it doesn't stop the prosperity gospel folks and neo-liberals of faith from looking past injustice and disadvantage).

It also interests me what the role of morality or social justice might be in a world where where matter isn't real and only consciousness is true. — Tom Storm

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter.

perhaps you could explain to me what protophilosophers and polethics are? :)

I understand the dilemma. Perhaps there is a certain beauty to the way Americans are ignorant. And I wish the word didn't have such a negative connotation. Personally I still feel ignorance is bliss. And it's certainly not something to judge or criticise. And knowledge can be bliss too. If you know the right things. I'm hopeful :)

If you know the right things. I'm hopeful :) — TaySan

How do you know you know the right things?

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter. — Athena

The idea that we 'choose the right thing when we know what it is' strikes me as problematic. I don't understand why someone would say this unless there is a vast scaffolding of philosophy underpinning the phrase 'when we know what it is'.

My understanding of human behavior is that we consistently choose short term pleasures and strong tribal positions and junk food along with junk ideas when we know there are better options and even know most of the time what these better options are.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action.

protophilosophers are the founders of philosophy, few of them learnt from any other protophilosophers and none of them learnt from philsoophers, they are the presocratics, Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, etc
polethics is a colexification I propose, one of politics and ethics taken as a single subject.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action. — Tom Storm

Yes, our sense of self and our emotions and addictions do become a complicating factor. We do not have to go to the extreme of convicts. Obese people and addicts feel compelled to do what they do. Shoplifting is associated with youthful "catch me if you can" thinking (monkey thinking) and with grief. How about speeding when we drive? :grin: It is hard to be good all the time.

Back to the convict example, I engaged with convicts and I would say at least some of them were confused. One young man was really looking forward to being in the correction system because he thought it meant real correction through education and he knew he was not prepared for life. It really upsets me when an abused woman finally kills her abuser and is put in prison. I don't think that is right.

Can philosophy help these people? I think it can but it has to be learned because this thinking does not come naturally and we all need support from others especially when we are trying to make a personal change. This is why the classics and philosophy or religion are important. Because we can learn to use our minds to live intentionally, to let go of the past and create ourselves as new people. In religion, this called born again. Religion has the benefit of a support group and not so much philosophy, but it is all about learning.

AA groups speak of our higher selves- that part of us that knows better. Well, it might not actually know what philosophy can teach us, but it has a desire to make the right choice. We may lack the strength at first. We may have really bad thinking habits that hold us down. But we all have a higher self that wants to get things right.

Late to the discourse but here's my two kobo. Philosophy can't create a better world; it's the effort of a few to look at the past and the present and think about both things together. The point of philosophy in my opinion is to provide an alternative to religion, a way of viewing the world as a priest/god rather than an adherent.

Philosophy can't help Co2 quotas but it can help understand the nonchalance surrounding it, it may even, when stretched, provide possible scenarios that could come out of the squable but a true solution can only be achieved through a collective effort.
Both in the sciences and in humanity in general.

To harp on the climate change theme-I know there are other problems but permit my narrow focus- climates always change, that's natural and has been dealt with by either changing cultural habits or removing humanity from the equation for as long as it takes for the climate to balance; the problem is that the climate is changing all over the world, a progressive nation can't stop this, a progressive continent can't stop it, only a progrressive humanity can. To solve a global problem you need global cooperation.

That is a good thought. I do not know of philosophies that speak directly to the problem of climate change, but the Bible tells us to be good stewards of the land and Islam is very supportive of learning. Perhaps we should make a group effort to bring together all the philosophy and religious notions we can to address the climate change problem. This might make a good thread that stands alone to focus on the one problem we really do need to resolve FAST.

Can philosophy help these people? — Athena

Not sure what that would look like but I would say that for many people it would not. Quality counselling might help.

AA groups speak of our higher selves — Athena

Not a big fan of AA based on what I have seen, but obviously social support groups do work and AA does work for some people. I prefer SMART Recovery. I am not crazy about hierarchical ideas like 'higher self' but some people find the frame useful.

I want to thank everyone for your responses. It has filled my heart with hope. From now on I won't be commenting on this post anymore. I'm moving on to more loving things.

Philosophy is the foundational questioning that ideas are built upon. Much of moral philosophy and modern politics are based upon philosophical ideas, questions and solutions. Philosophy is playing the long game, it shapes society over time. — Christoffer

Yep :up: I think the OP might could reflect on what kinds of philosophy are relevant here. For instance, as you so well pointed out, whether it's political philosophy, scientific philosophy, Christian philosophy (the golden rule) or any other kind of general philosophy, the important point is that philosophy lives in words. And we all use words to convey or communicate meaning, usually in order to advance the subject matter. Accordingly, we use reason and common sense (treating like cases likely and different cases differently) to discover and uncover new ways of Being.

Otherwise, conversely, I say, slay your Gilligan's; ask not what philosophy can do for you-ask what you can do for philosophy!

LOL Happy Friday!!!

I want to thank everyone for your responses. It has filled my heart with hope. From now on I won't be commenting on this post anymore. I'm moving on to more loving things. — TaySan

In case you check in with us, I have enjoyed your post.

Ataraxia & aponia (Epicurus) + scientia intuitiva (Spinoza) + amor fati / defiance / beatitude (Nietzsche / Camus / Rosset) ... in other words, momentary lapses in "boredom & pain" which (more often than not) accompany some daily form of play... — 180 Proof

My thoughts of happiness come from Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Thomas Jefferson

What is Plato's definition of happiness?
Like most other ancient philosophers, Plato maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic conception of ethics. That is to say, happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues (aretê: 'excellence') are the requisite skills and dispositions needed to attain it.Sep 16, 2003

Plato's Ethics: An Overview (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
plato.stanford.edu › entries › plato-ethics
Search for: What is Plato's definition of happiness?
What is Aristotle's concept of happiness?
According to Aristotle, happiness consists in achieving, through the course of a whole lifetime, all the goods — health, wealth, knowledge, friends, etc. — that lead to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life. This requires us to make choices, some of which may be very difficult. — Stanford

When I was young and trying to figure life out, I realized my idea of happiness was temporary amusements that really were not satisfying and often left me dissatisfied and wanting more. Then I began gardening and realized accomplishments give us an enduring happiness. I stopped chasing after the temporary happiness and began seeking achievements that become enduring happiness.

I want to reply to here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life.

Without education in philosophy, I think most people misunderstand the US Declaration of Independence and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson based that statement on Plato and Aristotle's understanding of happiness. And those who don't know that, do think happiness is a temporary thing, like seeing a good movie, enjoying ice cream, getting drunk and other things that can lead to suffering. Until we understand happiness as these men did, we do have enduring happiness and good judgment.

I want to reply to ↪Tom Storm here because of doubting how much philosophy can help rehabilitate convicts. My reply to him goes with my understanding of happiness and is the same as my belief that education and philosophy can redeem convicts or anyone struggling with life. — Athena

Not crazy about the word 'redeem' for me it has some awkward religious/conversion overtones - but let's place that to one side. My point was just that some people know very well what they ought not to do and why - they lack the capacity to regulate their emotions based on a fractured sense of self. Many will need to acquire some basic interpersonal skills first just to be in a position to sit still respectfully to listen to anything else.

Believing some people have dark skin because "God" cursed them is a little too offensive for me. — Athena

I hope you are aware that the Book of Mormon completely reverses its narrative on race by the end of the text. It sets things up to make you think it's going to side with 19th century white racialism early in the text, but then pulls the chair out from under that view by the end. It goes to the very core of that worldview and then brutally rips the guts out of it. Not as an outsider, but from a place of deeply understanding it, paying the narrative cost of doing that. And this wasn't an accident by any possible account either because Joseph Smith Jr and the early Latter Day Saints were vocally anti-slavery in a time and place where it was physically dangerous to be so. It is an explicitly liberal text (in the 19th century sense of the word liberal) and not what you'd assume if you go into it with a shallow reading, uninformed by historical context and then quit reading early on because of a stereotype.

Yes, it does say some things to set up the kind of world where white racialism makes sense: the kind of world which that worldview implicitly assumes must be how things work. But those statements do not stand unexamined by the end of the text.

Now I'm not saying everybody who gives it a fair reading does or should get convinced or converted to the Mormon church. I'm not with the Mormon church. I'm just saying, for the moment, that this particular charge of racism against the Book of Mormon can't be sustained given what was really going on both in the text and in the historical context of the 19th century.

Much ink has been spilled on the question of whether the Book of Mormon is true or false -- which is fair enough, because the text obnoxiously necessitates that kind of evaluation in its opening lines. But I think insufficient attention has been paid to the orthogonal question of whether the Book of Mormon is deep or shallow. My argument on this would be that no matter where you stand on its historicity, in fact, it is deep.

Sorry, I have to use AI to pull the rug out from under the argument you made. I did not single out Mormons when addressing racism, and I want to use an authority stronger than my own voice to be clear about this. Not only do I want to clear myself of the assumed wrong, but I want every single person to know the history of our racism. Christianity itself has always been a problem, and racism is not the only problem with Christianity.

During the Civil War, many Southern religious figures and thinkers, like Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell, Catholic Bishop Augustus Marie Martin, and others, argued slavery was divinely ordained, often citing the "Curse of Ham" (Genesis 9) to claim Africans were destined for servitude, while also using other biblical passages to portray bondage as a positive, patriarchal Christian institution necessary for social order. These justifications claimed scripture supported slavery as God's will, contradicting abolitionists who saw it as a moral evil.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Civil+war+who+believed+slaver+is+justified+by+god%27s+curse&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=Civil+war+who+believed+slaver+is+justified+by+god%27s+curse&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQIRgKGKABMgkIAhAhGAoYoAEyCQgDECEYChigATIJCAQQIRgKGKABMgcIBRAhGI8CMgcIBhAhGI8C0gEKNTEwNDNqMGoxNagCCLACAfEFif74NTwABCs&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I understand the dilemma. Perhaps there is a certain beauty to the way Americans are ignorant. And I wish the word didn't have such a negative connotation. Personally I still feel ignorance is bliss. And it's certainly not something to judge or criticise. And knowledge can be bliss too. If you know the right things. I'm hopeful — Deleted User

Are you a powerless human being? If a wrong is being done, do you have any responsibility to resolve the problem? Sure, ignorance is bliss, but as human beings, perhaps we carry a responsibility to bring an end to what is wrong?

The suffix "ance" forms nouns denoting an action. The word ignore means "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally." To intentionally ignore something is failing to take responsibility. That might be a moral problem or a morale problem.

I believe philosophy has done far more to manifest a better world than religion achieved. I sure as blazes do not want to go back in time to when one church ruled and maintained ignorance and superstition. I do not believe a God takes care of us, or gives us kings to take care of us, or wants us to go around the world killing people. If there is evil out there, I am sure if there is a God he can take that evil without us killing people. We manifest our own reality, and that goes better when we accept the responsibility for what we manifest.

:lol: I came of age in the 60s. One of many chants was....If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

To harp on the climate change theme-I know there are other problems but permit my narrow focus- climates always change, that's natural and has been dealt with by either changing cultural habits or removing humanity from the equation for as long as it takes for the climate to balance; the problem is that the climate is changing all over the world, a progressive nation can't stop this, a progressive continent can't stop it, only a progrressive humanity can. To solve a global problem you need global cooperation. — New2K2

I watched a good youtube explanatiion of climate change, and true, our planet has experienced climate change but you should not stop there. Ice ages happen. Millions of people would die in an ice age, but they are essential, and right now, the CO2 in our atmosphere is preventing an overdue ice age. If we continue in the direction we are going, we could become extinct.

We should not stop at saying the world has always experienced climate change. We need to know the CO2 problem is man-made and it has disrupted the earth cycle. I can not think of any good ways to handle what is happening, but we need to take responsibility for what we have done and will have to do in the future.

The oil and economic problem is not just an Ice age or thousands of years of intense heat. An article in a 1920 newspaper warned, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Two things changed. We opened oil wells around the world, and technology greatly increased the use we can get out of a barrel of oil. You might understand oil is finite and ignoring this problem is a problem.

At the end of WWII, the US was seen by many as a world savior. It was not long before the US's oil and economic needs made it a threat to countries around the world. If we paid at the gas pump for the cost of war, we couldn't afford gas. Our tax dollars subsidize the military costs of trying to control oil. We need to talk about this. We need to talk about oil and banking. We need more information, and we needed it yesterday. I am sure most of us feel helpless because we don't know enough to figure out the best way to deal with a very, very big problem. We should have started limiting our use of oil in the 1920's when the connection between oil, banking, and war was realized.

And philosophers need to pay attention to reality.

In fact, the Book of Mormon is fully informed by this narrative about the curse of Ham and is referencing it clearly, and everything that I said is true about it. It looks like it's endorsing the curse of Ham narrative early in the text, but late in the text it is revealed that it is really against it, by showing the consequences of it on a large scale. The more righteous people in the Book of Mormon, turn out in the end to be the Lamanites who started out with this curse you refer to, but by the end of the text, they are elevated above the Nephites and given all the Nephites promises, while the Nephites themselves are utterly destroyed for their pride and hubris. And those promises extend explicitly to the present day. It is a complete reversal by the end of the text! In a way that doesn't seem possible early on!