|
Them
Oct 18, 2018 20:44:49 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Oct 18, 2018 20:44:49 GMT -5
Heard my AM morning show moderates interview the author Ben Sasse of 'Them'. Ordered the book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Them
Oct 18, 2018 21:03:12 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2018 21:03:12 GMT -5
listened to that too on KTTH....may order it msyelf...
|
|
|
Them
Nov 7, 2018 1:05:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 7, 2018 1:05:06 GMT -5
I meant to order 'them' but bought 'The Vanishing American Adult' instead.
Good book, first fifty pages.
Blames the problem on affluence and John Dewey, the philosophical father of modern education.
Dewey packaged education as an all-in-all, something to be amorally approached.
Parents, and their petty prejudices of right and wrong, need not apply.
Adolescent peer review filled the vacuum.
Predictably home schoolers love Ben and atheists hate him.... Dewey was their man.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 7, 2018 2:22:55 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 7, 2018 2:22:55 GMT -5
I meant to order 'them' but bought 'The Vanishing American Adult' instead. Good book, first fifty pages. Blames the problem on affluence and John Dewey, the philosophical father of modern education. Dewey packaged education as an all-in-all, something to be amorally approached. Parents, and their petty prejudices of right and wrong, need not apply. Adolescent peer review filled the vacuum. Predictably home schoolers love Ben and atheists hate him.... Dewey was their man. Lee, What is it that you find wrong about John Dewey?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey The overriding theme of Dewey's works was his profound belief in democracy, be it in politics, education, or communication and journalism. As Dewey himself stated in 1888, while still at the University of Michigan,
"Democracy and the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity are to my mind synonymous."
? what is wrong with that idea?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 7, 2018 21:28:57 GMT -5
I'm still reading the book, but as it opens, Ben Sasse identifies education as one of the culprits underlying the retardation of American want-to-be adults.
Simply put, from afluence to defective social theories, we're failing to initiate our children into adulthood.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 8, 2018 1:01:44 GMT -5
snow likes this
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 8, 2018 1:01:44 GMT -5
I'm still reading the book, but as it opens, Ben Sasse identifies education as one of the culprits underlying the retardation of American want-to-be adults. Simply put, from afluence to defective social theories, we're failing to initiate our children into adulthood. A bit of a spoiled brat syndrome.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 8, 2018 14:11:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 8, 2018 14:11:23 GMT -5
True. If one refrains from being self absorbed, one recognizes just how much work there is to do, in the vein of habilitating our own.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 9:55:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 20, 2018 9:55:41 GMT -5
I'm halfway through his book. Prescient essay on modern American culture, it's demons, and it's crossroads at habilitation, or furthering pathos.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 10:01:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 20, 2018 10:01:31 GMT -5
I meant to order 'them' but bought 'The Vanishing American Adult' instead. Good book, first fifty pages. Blames the problem on affluence and John Dewey, the philosophical father of modern education. Dewey packaged education as an all-in-all, something to be amorally approached. Parents, and their petty prejudices of right and wrong, need not apply. Adolescent peer review filled the vacuum. Predictably home schoolers love Ben and atheists hate him.... Dewey was their man. Lee, What is it that you find wrong about John Dewey?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey The overriding theme of Dewey's works was his profound belief in democracy, be it in politics, education, or communication and journalism. As Dewey himself stated in 1888, while still at the University of Michigan,
"Democracy and the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity are to my mind synonymous."
? what is wrong with that idea?
Americas foundation was essentially a theistic culture, and experiment. It supposes God is, and it supposes God might be more perfectly realized by a process of consensus, voting. A lofty aspiration, without a doubt. Such a culture would necessarily be moralistic. The problem with school (I'm saying, Ben Sasse is saying) Dewey's atheistic vision was that schoolasticism could be an end all be all, in lieu of religious and domestic influences. Historically, that authority was reserved for parents, and their association with religious influence and authority, their traditions, and their proximity and reception to their consciences. Schoolasticism's tendency had been to displace that. In the absense of moral direction, children today are burdened by the existential angst of "what is school for"? How does it relate to what Im supposed to be? Schoolasticism is a kind of trojan horse of a-theism-nihlism.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 14:52:47 GMT -5
Post by snow on Nov 20, 2018 14:52:47 GMT -5
Lee, What is it that you find wrong about John Dewey?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey The overriding theme of Dewey's works was his profound belief in democracy, be it in politics, education, or communication and journalism. As Dewey himself stated in 1888, while still at the University of Michigan,
"Democracy and the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity are to my mind synonymous."
? what is wrong with that idea?
Americas foundation was essentially a theistic culture, and experiment. It supposes God is, and it supposes God might be more perfectly realized by a process of consensus, voting. A lofty aspiration, without a doubt. Such a culture would necessarily be moralistic. The problem with school (I'm saying, Ben Sasse is saying) Dewey's atheistic vision was that schoolasticism could be an end all be all, in lieu of religious and domestic influences. Historically, that authority was reserved for parents, and their association with religious influence and authority, their traditions, and their proximity and reception to their consciences. Schoolasticism's tendency had been to displace that. In the absense of moral direction, children today are burdened by the existential angst of "what is school for"? How does it relate to what Im supposed to be? Schoolasticism is a kind of trojan horse of a-theism-nihlism. A secular or atheist society has nothing whatsoever to do with morality. Morality evolved along with our sense of empathy. No external authority is required to explain morality, much less a god for which there is no evidence. Being an atheist does not make you immoral. Being a theist does not make you moral. This cuts both ways. There is nothing moral about theism. Even if we assumed that a particular god existed and gave commandments, obedience is not morality. To claim that a god is the source of one's morality is to admit that one is immoral and only behaving under threat of authority. It feels to me from interacting with US Americans that they really don't care about the world around them. I also think the average knowledge base has reduced over the years. It seems as though kids are being dumbed down. Some of the things they say really questions the amount of knowledge they have about much of anything. I do agree with you that we could do more to teach kids integrity but how do we teach our kids to be honest, have integrity etc when they see their parents and role models acting without it. That's one reason why I see Trump as such a dangerous person to be in his position. Obviously someone that lies, cheats and basically treats other like trash can be successful. After all such a person if the president of what they have been told is the greatest country in the world. Children learn by example. Trump is a horrendous example to follow imo.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 15:40:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 20, 2018 15:40:26 GMT -5
Its a doubtful assumpxtion that morality evolved from our sense of empathy, apart from our attempts to formalize a sense of right and wrong, call it religion.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 15:50:45 GMT -5
Post by snow on Nov 20, 2018 15:50:45 GMT -5
Its a doubtful assumption that morality evolved from our sense of empathy, apart from our attempts to formalize a sense of right and wrong, call it religion. I disagree. The reason I say that is that if someone cannot feel empathy for people it doesn't matter what religion they are, they will never be 'moral' without either the fear of punishment or the promise of reward. I have done a lot of case histories and every one of the ones that were done with a sociopath said that they didn't feel empathy for anyone and that they learned what was right and wrong but never felt it. When they got caught they never felt sorry for their victim, just that they got caught. So that tells me that our ability to feel empathy for others is what dictates how we will walk through this life. Religion has nothing to do with that. Long before traditional religions people knew the difference between right and wrong ways of treating people. The ability to put yourself in some one else's shoes makes it possible to treat others as you would be like to be treated. Being moral because someone told you to be is a good thing of course, but if you don't really feel it inside it becomes something you do because you may be punished if you do things to someone. Or if there is a promise of a reward for being good. Of course that really isn't morality is it when you do something because of either a punishment or a reward and not because you actually feel the reason why you treat others with respect and try not to harm them.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 20, 2018 15:57:31 GMT -5
via mobile
snow likes this
Post by Lee on Nov 20, 2018 15:57:31 GMT -5
I dont disagree, but I believe religion was first formalized in conjunction with the cultural imperatives of ethnicity. The Jews however, weren't so much a culture as they were a sub culture of a more powerful nation, when god first adopted them.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 22, 2018 3:33:37 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2018 3:33:37 GMT -5
I dont disagree, but I believe religion was first formalized in conjunction with the cultural imperatives of ethnicity. The Jews however, weren't so much a culture as they were a sub culture of a more powerful nation, when god first adopted them. ?? -sub culture of WHAT powerful nation?
-god first adopted them?
-god first adopted them?
THEY adopted HIM!
|
|
|
Them
Nov 22, 2018 3:45:34 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 22, 2018 3:45:34 GMT -5
Its a doubtful assumpxtion that morality evolved from our sense of empathy, apart from our attempts to formalize a sense of right and wrong, call it religion. Except there is NO reason to have to call it "religion!" : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
And it did not have to evolve from a "sense" of empathy."
It came about from a sense of reciprocity
|
|
|
Them
Nov 22, 2018 21:02:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 22, 2018 21:02:02 GMT -5
I think reciprocity is born of empathy. Do you have another idea? Reciprocity among criminals might not be enviable, but how could it develop in them without a sense of empathy?
Religion is part of evolution. It's wasn't born of the male patriarchal demon, unless you believe patriarchal males are demons, and all religion is evil.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 22, 2018 21:14:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 22, 2018 21:14:41 GMT -5
I dont disagree, but I believe religion was first formalized in conjunction with the cultural imperatives of ethnicity. The Jews however, weren't so much a culture as they were a sub culture of a more powerful nation, when god first adopted them. ?? -sub culture of WHAT powerful nation?
-god first adopted them?
-god first adopted them?
THEY adopted HIM!I believe in God. Man is an imperfect filter of him but it deosnt quit me form believing.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 23, 2018 1:21:21 GMT -5
snow likes this
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2018 1:21:21 GMT -5
I think reciprocity is born of empathy. Do you have another idea? Reciprocity among criminals might not be enviable, but how could it develop in them without a sense of empathy? Religion is part of evolution. It's wasn't born of the male patriarchal demon, unless you believe patriarchal males are demons, and all religion is evil. Empathy and reciprocity are really two different feelings.
Empathy is the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation.
While reciprocity is a social construct based more of a self-interest model built on the idea that if we treat others well, that they well they reciprocate and people can live together without fear of one another and in a way that benefits each other and can advance their goals. Reciprocity makes it possible to build on each others successes.
There is a whole lot less empathy in the world than there is reciprocity!
I don't understand how you see religion is part of evolution. Evolution of what? Evolution for the better? Society? Moralit
Religion has NEVER served mankind for the better! Religion has only divided people, -has caused them to hate one another and hate each other gods.
If there were true "empathy" of people for one another -"the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation," -then they would follow the so-called "Golden Rule"; "the principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated."
But without a secular government you aren't ever going to have people to abide by that "principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated."
ANY and every religious government WILL exert THEIR BELIEFS on everyone! It is just the nature of the beast!
It isn't because we don't have many examples of that being true Look at Catholic rule of Europe for so many years! Islamic rule in some countries today.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 24, 2018 9:13:42 GMT -5
Post by Lee on Nov 24, 2018 9:13:42 GMT -5
You may be chasing your own tail, in your analysis.
In sounds like you believe the golden rule can only be effected by secular government. How is that NOT like the paternalistic nature of a religion, a totalistic, authority-ideological instrument? How is secular government as you've defined it, not like a theocracy?
|
|
|
Them
Nov 24, 2018 17:08:20 GMT -5
Post by snow on Nov 24, 2018 17:08:20 GMT -5
You may be chasing your own tail, in your analysis. In sounds like you believe the golden rule can only be effected by secular government. How is that NOT like the paternalistic nature of a religion, a totalistic, authority-ideological instrument? How is secular government as you've defined it, not like a theocracy? I know you're not asking me, but I'd like to answer. For me a theocracy is based on a religious belief that cannot change. Secular government can be based on many of the ideologies of a theocracy, with one major difference. It can change when new data and findings are introduced and it allows for people with many diverse beliefs to live under the secular umbrella that allows them the freedom to do that. Theocracies don't usually allow for other religious beliefs or changes when things are found that negate what they used to think was right.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 24, 2018 17:47:52 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 24, 2018 17:47:52 GMT -5
You may be chasing your own tail, in your analysis. In sounds like you believe the golden rule can only be effected by secular government. How is that NOT like the paternalistic nature of a religion, a totalistic, authority-ideological instrument? How is secular government as you've defined it, not like a theocracy? First can YOU tell me, Lee, -just why & how do you think that a secular government is the same as a "paternalistic nature of a religion, a totalistic, authority-ideological instrument?
|
|
|
Them
Nov 24, 2018 20:33:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Lee on Nov 24, 2018 20:33:28 GMT -5
What are battleships, destroyers, guided missiles, planes, bombs, and tanks for? What is secularism guarding, or advancing? Must be something pretty important.
And it is. Civilization is very important, if the human in his capacity for transcendence is something most people aspire to.
Religion gave expression to the concept of ideologically-born order and authority. If we accept a naturalistic theory of mankind's evolution, rather than demonizing religion, we should recognize a parallel relationship between religion and progress.
We can do the chicken and egg thing...which came first?
But we can't demonize religion, per se.
It's an integral stage in mankinds development.
Unless you want to play the random game, the chaos game, and suppose there's no order or logic to anything that happens.
In that case, things only appear to have order because we are desperate to perceive order.
But now we're getting out in the weeds.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 24, 2018 20:41:38 GMT -5
via mobile
snow likes this
Post by Lee on Nov 24, 2018 20:41:38 GMT -5
You may be chasing your own tail, in your analysis. In sounds like you believe the golden rule can only be effected by secular government. How is that NOT like the paternalistic nature of a religion, a totalistic, authority-ideological instrument? How is secular government as you've defined it, not like a theocracy? I know you're not asking me, but I'd like to answer. For me a theocracy is based on a religious belief that cannot change. Secular government can be based on many of the ideologies of a theocracy, with one major difference. It can change when new data and findings are introduced and it allows for people with many diverse beliefs to live under the secular umbrella that allows them the freedom to do that. Theocracies don't usually allow for other religious beliefs or changes when things are found that negate what they used to think was right. I agree. The highest aspiration of a healthy society, I would think, is whether or not it can be self determining.
|
|
|
Them
Nov 25, 2018 0:46:28 GMT -5
snow likes this
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2018 0:46:28 GMT -5
What are battleships, destroyers, guided missiles, planes, bombs, and tanks for? What is secularism guarding, or advancing? Must be something pretty important. And it is. Civilization is very important, if the human in his capacity for transcendence is something most people aspire to. Religion gave expression to the concept of ideologically-born order and authority. If we accept a naturalistic theory of mankind's evolution, rather than demonizing religion, we should recognize a parallel relationship between religion and progress. We can do the chicken and egg thing...which came first? But we can't demonize religion, per se. It's an integral stage in mankinds development. Unless you want to play the random game, the chaos game, and suppose there's no order or logic to anything that happens. In that case, things only appear to have order because we are desperate to perceive order. But now we're getting out in the weeds. My daughter & I just had this discussion a hour ago. She is the one that shocked the socks off her class by declaring she was an atheist in this small town which has two Apostolic churches.
She has refined, modified, her ideas as we all should do if we grow as we get older.
Still not a theist, but she understands better the reason people are believers. You two would have a good conversation.
You ask "What is secularism guarding, or advancing?"
A democratic secular government is guarding and advancing the freedom that allows people and ideas to flourish..and it is impossible to have a sectarian government that will allow that kind of freedom.
That is obvious in every attempt that has ever been made.
Yes, of course "religion was an integral stage in mankind's development." We should say "stages", because religions changed as mankind's needs changed.
But my question is why? What was the reason that mankind needed "religion" with it's ideas, beliefs, and values formed in such a concrete way?
I think that it was because life WAS "random," -it was because there WAS "chaos" all around!
There wasn't much that they could depend on. There was a lot in nature that were destroyers of lives and environment for no reason that they understood!
So not knowing anything about why nature acted the way it did they attempted to corral the problem by creating a deity that they could appease who would bring some order into their lives.
To do that you have to establish some kind of authority.
Thus were born the "priests" and shamans."
|
|
|
Them
Nov 25, 2018 20:11:34 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2018 20:11:34 GMT -5
In our long discussion last night with my daughter on our present situation in the US, -she said that she is going to studies of “The Federalist Papers." Today I noted when looking are Ben Sasse the author of Them, the book and name of your post, Lee, -in interview with the New York Times Sasse stated this: "I think the most important American book on political philosophy is “The Federalist Papers,” by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay .
When they were forming the new government they knew that power left to any one person or group tended towards wanting and gaining more power.
They wanted to curb that power from overcoming the system.
Of course we all know that they purposely set up our three branches of government as independent of each other to order place checks on any one getting too much power .
However, I wasn't near aware of just how it worked and especially how they check each other even WITHIN their own branch! I think that I had better read “The Federalist Papers!”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Them
Nov 25, 2018 22:15:01 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2018 22:15:01 GMT -5
In our long discussion last night with my daughter on our present situation in the US, -she said that she is going to studies of “The Federalist Papers." Today I noted when looking are Ben Sasse the author of Them, the book and name of your post, Lee, -in interview with the New York Times Sasse stated this: "I think the most important American book on political philosophy is “The Federalist Papers,” by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay .
When they were forming the new government they knew that power left to any one person or group tended towards wanting and gaining more power.
They wanted to curb that power from overcoming the system.
Of course we all know that they purposely set up our three branches of government as independent of each other to order place checks on any one getting too much power .
However, I wasn't near aware of just how it worked and especially how they check each other even WITHIN their own branch! I think that I had better read “The Federalist Papers!”
the federalist papers explains a lot of the thinking behind the amendments and the constitution...don't be surprised if she has a new view of the 2nd after reading #28 #29 and #46...and other quotes and comments about it....
|
|
|
Them
Nov 26, 2018 2:04:46 GMT -5
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 26, 2018 2:04:46 GMT -5
In our long discussion last night with my daughter on our present situation in the US, -she said that she is going to studies of “The Federalist Papers." Today I noted when looking are Ben Sasse the author of Them, the book and name of your post, Lee, -in interview with the New York Times Sasse stated this: "I think the most important American book on political philosophy is “The Federalist Papers,” by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay .
When they were forming the new government they knew that power left to any one person or group tended towards wanting and gaining more power.
They wanted to curb that power from overcoming the system.
Of course we all know that they purposely set up our three branches of government as independent of each other to order place checks on any one getting too much power .
However, I wasn't near aware of just how it worked and especially how they check each other even WITHIN their own branch! I think that I had better read “The Federalist Papers!”
the federalist papers explains a lot of the thinking behind the amendments and the constitution...don't be surprised if she has a new view of the 2nd after reading #28 #29 and #46...and other quotes and comments about it.... Why, I wonder, -am I thinking that those particular ones are the ONLY ones that you have ever read wally,- and that you didn't read them from the “The Federalist Papers?”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Them
Nov 26, 2018 3:12:43 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2018 3:12:43 GMT -5
the federalist papers explains a lot of the thinking behind the amendments and the constitution...don't be surprised if she has a new view of the 2nd after reading #28 #29 and #46...and other quotes and comments about it.... Why, I wonder, -am I thinking that those particular ones are the ONLY ones that you have ever read wally,- and that you didn't read them from the “The Federalist Papers?” i have copy in my home of the federalist papers so no cigar for you...
|
|