Logos

[Athena]

As moral and The Law are essential concepts, so is logos. Now I will really take issue with religion, because of how Christianity distorted our understanding of logos, with myth and superstition, and how this distortion then effects our understanding of democracy- rule by reason. This is from Wikipedia

 

ump to: navigation, search This article is about Logos (plural: logoi) in philosophy, rhetoric, linguistics, psychology and theology. For the plural logo, see Logo. For other uses, see Logos (disambiguation). Logos, Greek spelling Logos (/ˈloʊɡɒs/, UK /ˈlɒɡɒs/, or US /ˈloʊɡoʊs/; Greek: λόγος, from λέγω lego "I say") is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word," "speech," "account," "reason,"^[1][2] it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.^[3]

 

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse"^[4] or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric.^[5] The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.

 

After Judaism came under Hellenistic influence, Philo (ca. 20 BC–AD 50) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy.^[6] The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos),^[7] and further identifies Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos.

 

Although the term "Logos" is widely used in this Christian sense, in academic circles it often refers to the various ancient Greek uses, or to post-Christian uses within contemporary philosophy, Sufism, and the analytical psychology of Carl Jung.

 

[imatfaal]

As moral and The Law are essential concepts, so is logos.

Not sure about your premises. The law is not essential. Many communities have evolved without what the western world would call law - ie missing concepts such as non-arbitrariness, constancy, non-retroactivity, impersonal application etc. One could also make an argument for other societies lacking morality - and only having proscriptive law, cultural norms and social taboos etc. Logos in its Aristotelian sense of an argument from reason is often sadly lacking and trails behind pathos and ethos in most political debates. So whilst those three things are to be desired and encouraged in a polity - they are by no means essential.

 

 

Now I will really take issue with religion, because of how Christianity distorted our understanding of logos, with myth and superstition, and how this distortion then effects our understanding of democracy- rule by reason.

 

Firstly democracy [imath] \ne[/imath] rule by reason. Democracy is rule by the mob or the crowd - or in the most generous sense of the word by the the people; reason has nothing to do with it in too many cases. Christianity's co-option of the term strikes me to be very much in the same vein as the Stoics use of the word - but then so much of early Christianity can be seen as a branch of later forms of Stoicism. Logos is a term that needs a little more clarification before it can be properly discussed - what meaning are you placing on it? there have been many throughout the years and we cannot have a discussion when the basic terms are far from agreed.

[Athena]

Not sure about your premises. The law is not essential. Many communities have evolved without what the western world would call law - ie missing concepts such as non-arbitrariness, constancy, non-retroactivity, impersonal application etc. One could also make an argument for other societies lacking morality - and only having proscriptive law, cultural norms and social taboos etc. Logos in its Aristotelian sense of an argument from reason is often sadly lacking and trails behind pathos and ethos in most political debates. So whilst those three things are to be desired and encouraged in a polity - they are by no means essential.

 

 

 

 

Firstly democracy [imath] \ne[/imath] rule by reason. Democracy is rule by the mob or the crowd - or in the most generous sense of the word by the the people; reason has nothing to do with it in too many cases. Christianity's co-option of the term strikes me to be very much in the same vein as the Stoics use of the word - but then so much of early Christianity can be seen as a branch of later forms of Stoicism. Logos is a term that needs a little more clarification before it can be properly discussed - what meaning are you placing on it? there have been many throughout the years and we cannot have a discussion when the basic terms are far from agreed.

 

 

Good morning. It is really a delight to start the day with a good laugh. I hope you see the humor in your argument and do not take this as an insult, but there would be no manifest reality without The Law.

 

That mob or crowd is acting on reason. If their reasoning is good, their action will have excellent results, like sanitation laws that save thousands of lives. If their reasoning is bad, their action will have terrible results, such as the invasion of Iraq and destruction of their cities and all the human suffering, and the following consequences of Iran and Korea possibly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and all the tension and fighting, and the huge cost to the tax payers who are being billed for one bad decision after another, so we have the freedom to buy gas hogs that are a terrible waste of a finite resource but are also ego based status symbols that consume oil as fast as it is taken out of the ground, driving up oil prices around the world, and causing all kinds of trouble that fall on the poor and future generations, including intense hunger when turn corn into fuel. All this bull shit starts with ignoring the 1920 warning, "Given our known oil reserves and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster, and possibly war." Geeze, we have had since 1920 to work on this problem. I think the rumor that humans are intelligent is highly over rated. Moving along.

 

Because democracy relies on the reasoning of the masses, education is vital to a democracy, but our education system is obviously failing us and making these discussions about cause and reason, seem futile. Good education is education for moral judgment, so the masses are highly moral and safely enjoy liberty. Understanding the laws of nature is essential to that, and we had education for good moral judgment until 1958. Democracy is a work in progress, and it needs science for that progress, but not just science. Morality is applied science, but we have amoral science because we stopped preparing everyone for independent thinking and have gone to "group think". This is a disaster!

 

Agreed, we need a better definition of logos and I was working on that when I saw your post. I like the word "God" better than logos, but everyone uses Christian mythology to define God, instead of an understanding Thomas Jefferson's Laws of Nature and Nature's God, which comes to Jefferson through Cicero, who was a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. Anyway, I am working on a useful definition of logos. It would be nice if the bible said, in the beginning there was math, and proceeded to explain our reality from there. Logos, is the reason of all things. Is that helpful?

 

We use the word God for the reason of all things, but even atheist have given Christians the right to define God. This was not the case when Jesus came onto the scene. Christianity comes out of Roman Law of Nature, which blended Hellenistic reason and Roman's attempts to include everyone one powerful empire, with Prussian and Egyptian religion all mixed up with Judaism and the off shoots of Judaism which included those who deified Jesus. We need to go back to when there was resistance to allowing Christians the right to define God. I guess that means picking up an understanding of logos? Or is there another way to think about God without it meaning the God of Abraham and all the superstition that goes with that? To me, it is foolish to prevent discussion of truth, and support Christian superstition by insisting there is no God. Can Christianity exist without the antiChrist? You may not get my sense of humor, but manifest reality is possible because of positive and negative changes. Anyway, what is truth, what are the laws of manifest reality and morality?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Athena

[imatfaal]

Good morning. It is really a delight to start the day with a good laugh. I hope you see the humor in your argument and do not take this as an insult, but there would be no manifest reality without The Law.

 

That mob or crowd is acting on reason. If their reasoning is good, their action will have excellent results, like sanitation laws that save thousands of lives. If their reasoning is bad, their action will have terrible results, such as the invasion of Iraq and destruction of their cities and all the human suffering, and the following consequences of Iran and Korea possibly attempting to develop nuclear weapons, and all the tension and fighting, and the huge cost to the tax payers who are being billed for one bad decision after another, so we have the freedom to buy gas hogs that are a terrible waste of a finite resource but are also ego based status symbols that consume oil as fast as it is taken out of the ground, driving up oil prices around the world, and causing all kinds of trouble that fall on the poor and future generations, including intense hunger when turn corn into fuel.

 

That is why education vital to a democracy, but our education system is obviously failing us and making these discussions seem futile. Good education is for moral judgment, so the masses are highly moral and safely enjoy liberty. Understanding the laws of nature is essential to that!

 

Agreed, we need a better definition of logos and I was working on that when I saw your post. I like the word God better than logos, but everyone uses Christian mythology to define God, instead of an understanding Thomas Jefferson's Laws of Nature and Nature's God, which comes to Jefferson through Cicero, who was a Roman statesman who studied in Athens. Anyway, I am working on a useful definition of logos. It would be nice if the bible said, in the beginning there was math, and proceeded to explain our reality from there. Logos, the reason of all things. Is that helpful?

 

Actually I do find it a tiny bit insulting that you use your own personal definitions for words and meanings for phrases and then find it amusing that I was foolish enough to answer you using standard ideas and definitions.

 

Define The Law; because, barring a completely atypical definition, "there would be no manifest reality without The Law" is nonsense.

 

That mob or crowd is acting on reason.

Says who? - the mob, is most often used figuratively as the very quintessence of those acting outside of reason; perhaps you should think of this in the ethos/pathos/logos threeway split.

 

That is why education vital to a democracy, but our education system is obviously failing us and making these discussions seem futile.

Education isn't as good as it was when one was younger - and this has always been the case! It's part of getting older to judge everything younger and newer as automatically flimsier and of lower quality. Children today have a different environment to grow up within, varying challenges and threats, most of which would be alien to those growing up in the 1950s. Culture, life, hopes and ambitions, career expectancies - virtually everything has changed.

 

To use the word God removed from a religious content is deliberately contrived and not useful - use logos but you do need to specify which one, or expand on one of the generally discussed versions. I think you are along the lines of a spiritual universal principle possessed by all living things - a vital force; but you are imbuing that concept with a necessary rationalism and reason.

[Greg H.]

Define The Law; because, barring a completely atypical definition, "there would be no manifest reality without The Law" is nonsense.

 

 

Imatfaal,

Athena defines this concept of The Law in another thread to which I have been replying. The definition is less than satisfying, but I will include it here for you.

 

Our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment, because our understanding of morals laws comes from many sources, and they are tied to The Law, our best understanding of how the universe works.

 

Another word for The Law is "God", and a moral is understanding how God works. This is not religion, because it is not the word of the God. It is our own observations and what we infer about God and how things work, and that is philosophy. This understanding is vitally important to our democracy and liberty. Before 1958 everyone was taught this, and since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, we have announced a national youth crisis, a crisis in our jail and prison system, a welfare crisis, a banking crisis, political crisis. Sure we had crisis before 1958, but we understood they are the result of not correctly know The Laws that regulate our lives. Today the crisis is, denial of any laws except the ones we make. We are smart by not wise, and will not resolve our problems as long as we deny the ancient Greek understanding of moral- to know The Law and good manners.

 

from http://www.sciencefo...ge__pid__679327

[imatfaal]

Many thanks Greg. I hadn't got around to that thread yet.

[zapatos]

I believe the tablet held by the Statue of Liberty symbolizes the concept of law, not literacy.

Edited May 21, 2012 by zapatos

[Athena]

Actually I do find it a tiny bit insulting that you use your own personal definitions for words and meanings for phrases and then find it amusing that I was foolish enough to answer you using standard ideas and definitions.

 

Define The Law; because, barring a completely atypical definition, "there would be no manifest reality without The Law" is nonsense.

 

Says who? - the mob, is most often used figuratively as the very quintessence of those acting outside of reason; perhaps you should think of this in the ethos/pathos/logos threeway split.

 

Education isn't as good as it was when one was younger - and this has always been the case! It's part of getting older to judge everything younger and newer as automatically flimsier and of lower quality. Children today have a different environment to grow up within, varying challenges and threats, most of which would be alien to those growing up in the 1950s. Culture, life, hopes and ambitions, career expectancies - virtually everything has changed.

 

To use the word God removed from a religious content is deliberately contrived and not useful - use logos but you do need to specify which one, or expand on one of the generally discussed versions. I think you are along the lines of a spiritual universal principle possessed by all living things - a vital force; but you are imbuing that concept with a necessary rationalism and reason.

 

Gosh I am sorry. I wonder if Socrates felt as bad when people took offense, when all he was trying to do is get to the truth of something.

 

Here is the problem. Democracy really does depend on knowledge of Greek and Roman classics, and they were the foundation of our education, until be began educating for a technological society with unknown values. The definitions I use are not mine, but were common to those educated before 1958. I do not have this communication with older people. At least not the females. How am I suppose to know which concepts that were common knowledge are no longer common knowledge? I am discovering the communication problem as I go along. It is as though I got moved to Germany, our culture is so changed, and I hope I can be forgiven for feeling like a stranger in this new technological society where the logic is so different from mine own?

How do I bridge the gap without being offensive? Do you think we would have manifest reality with the laws of physics, or that we would have civilizations without the laws human nature? Of course not. The law is the cause of all things. It is our job as humans to learn the learn the law, and then govern ourselves with knowledge of The Law. I do not know there can be a democracy without this understanding?

 

Now I can not avoid pissing people off for mentioning the change in education again? The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced our liberal education with education for technology, and the social and political ramifications of this are huge. The young are operating with a completely different consciousness, such as not understanding moral means knowing The Law and good manners, and that people who do not know this are ignorant and can not have liberty, because they do not have good moral judgment. This is not my idea, but was what everyone was taught. We defend our liberty by knowing The Law and then reasoning for our laws and obeying them. Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility and it is our responsibility to argue the reasoning of a law if we believe the reasoning of a law is wrong. See? It is all about understanding The Law, it is not knowing you can make millions of dollars if a law is written for that purpose. Our democracy is going to hell, because the young no longer know, democracy is about knowing The Law and morals and their responsibility to assure our laws comply with The Law.

No using the word God without mythology is not contrived. It is about knowing The Law, and damn religion for causing the confusion we have today. We must correct this confusion, by arguing truth. And I have grandchildren needing my attention, so I have to run.

 

[Xittenn]

If their reasoning is good, their action will have excellent results, like sanitation laws that save thousands of lives.

 

And will eventually kill many more. Antibiotics will eventually be overruled by unruly microbes. Landfills will eventually overfill and their concentrations of toxic matter will pollute all those areas we fought so hard to protect. Water from cleaning will eventually become saturated to the point of expense in filtration that is beyond our means. Sanitation is good, it is hardly God, or The Law, and neither is tunnel vision.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Xittenn

[doG]

...democracy- rule by reason....

False. democracy ≠ rule by reason

 

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

 

BTW, you really need to do a better job at supporting your alleged assertions. We really don't care for your fiction.

[imatfaal]

Gosh I am sorry. I wonder if Socrates felt as bad when people took offense, when all he was trying to do is get to the truth of something.

+1 on the Baez Index.

 

Here is the problem. Democracy really does depend on knowledge of Greek and Roman classics, and they were the foundation of our education, until be began educating for a technological society with unknown values. The definitions I use are not mine, but were common to those educated before 1958.

Nonsense. I have a very good understanding of classical philosophy and history, especially the legal and jurisprudential side - these are not usual definitions.

 

I do not have this communication with older people. At least not the females. How am I suppose to know which concepts that were common knowledge are no longer common knowledge? I am discovering the communication problem as I go along. It is as though I got moved to Germany, our culture is so changed, and I hope I can be forgiven for feeling like a stranger in this new technological society where the logic is so different from mine own?

Will you please stop being so beastly to the Germans - cultural shorthand is dangerous (unless of course it's Noel Coward). the same society that produced some of the the worst extremes of the 20th century also produce Hilbert and Einstein. As a great man once said Generalizations NEVER work.

How do I bridge the gap without being offensive? Do you think we would have manifest reality with the laws of physics, or that we would have civilizations without the laws human nature? Of course not. The law is the cause of all things. It is our job as humans to learn the learn the law, and then govern ourselves with knowledge of The Law. I do not know there can be a democracy without this understanding?

This seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of laws as cause rather than human creation. The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding. the laws of physics are a human artifact to aid comprehension of nature - they do not bind, there is no arbitration; nature and reality just is! On the laws of human nature I would need one example that was universal throughout civilization before I could grant you that point. We humans interpret that reality and posit laws that nature and physics must obey - but you are quite wrong to think that the laws have any existence outside human (and/or alien) comprehension

 

Now I can not avoid pissing people off for mentioning the change in education again? The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced our liberal education with education for technology, and the social and political ramifications of this are huge. The young are operating with a completely different consciousness, such as not understanding moral means knowing The Law and good manners, and that people who do not know this are ignorant and can not have liberty, because they do not have good moral judgment.

You could try backing up your continued assertions with a few facts or references. The students in my classes have shown to me that young people today have a much more developed and nuanced understanding of morality and law that I had when I was in their situation and age band; and, I believe, better than most generations before them. When I read of the intolerance, race-hatred, homophobia, sexism, and bigotry that was prevalent in the era you are lauding I am proud and lucky to say that I lacked the education that made them what they were.

 

 

This is not my idea, but was what everyone was taught. We defend our liberty by knowing The Law and then reasoning for our laws and obeying them. Our Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility and it is our responsibility to argue the reasoning of a law if we believe the reasoning of a law is wrong. See? It is all about understanding The Law, it is not knowing you can make millions of dollars if a law is written for that purpose. Our democracy is going to hell, because the young no longer know, democracy is about knowing The Law and morals and their responsibility to assure our laws comply with The Law.

Universal (or near universal) participation in the law-making or law-changing process is an ideal that was never achieved in any decent sized polity. The reason our democracy is going to hell is because the old and rich are too damned powerful and the young have been hamstrung by the wealth and power of the old. We are more dominated by fear than for many years; fear of crime, fear of unemployment, fear of poverty - and I see this generalized irrational fear as being rooted in the mindsets of established generations and only percolating through to the young slowly.

No using the word God without mythology is not contrived. It is about knowing The Law, and damn religion for causing the confusion we have today. We must correct this confusion, by arguing truth. And I have grandchildren needing my attention, so I have to run.

Of course is it contrived - God is not a concept "stolen" by the religious and in need of reclamation. Your concept of God/The Law/Logos are all misuses of commonly used terms - it is you who are causing the confusion.

[Athena]

I believe the tablet held by the Statue of Liberty symbolizes the concept of law, not literacy.

 

You are right, but not just any law. On what I was calling the book is the date of the US independence. That means, when our constitutional government protecting our liberty was put into law. Now we have to ask, how was the separation from Britain justified, and how is liberty possible? But first I should correct my errors. I should have used the word tablet instead of book because it is associated with what the

Romans would use to declare a law. Wikipedia gives us a much better explanation of the Statue of Liberty than what I could find a few years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

 

The fuller explanation is all convoluted with Greek and Roman mythology and possibly the Zoroaster religion from Persia, and attitudes towards slavery and freedom, and self control as opposed to debauchery. It all brings us back to only highly moral people can have liberty, and that this morality is something that must be taught and learned. Our Statue of Liberty is wearing a crown of sun rays, seven in number, we have seven seas and seven continents, and the number seven is associated with the mystical or divine and the Virgin Goddess bringing us back to knowledge and wisdom, and the liberal arts. This is the foundation of education since the medieval ages until, military technology and war, focused education on technology. The seven liberal arts are seven paths of learning intended to liberate us from mundane life. Which brings us back the possible insanity of giving everyone liberty! I guess it is the bible that tells us God gave us free will, but the bible also tells us God gives us rulers, and these rulers are chosen by God, and we are to obey them. I don't want to make this too long, the point remains, we must be educated in the liberal arts to have liberty, without destroying ourselves.

 

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR PUSHING ME TO GET BETTER INFORMATION AND TO CLARIFY MY THOUGHTS. NEXT TO MY FAMILY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN MY LIFE. MANY OF OUR FOREFATHERS WERE MASONS AND THEY STUDIED THE ANCIENTS INTENTLY AND FIRMLY BELIEVED IN THE NEW AGE, WHEN ALL OF HUMANITY WOULD BE ENLIGHTENED. THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT FOR US TO DISCUSS.

 

False. democracy ≠ rule by reason

 

 

 

BTW, you really need to do a better job at supporting your alleged assertions. We really don't care for your fiction.

 

You are quoting the man who devoted his life to assuring us all liberty and establishing free public education, because he thought, liberal education was essential to a strong republic. He stood against the Federalist who could be called conservatives and who would have established strong government over the people. He also edited the bible, removing everything not compliant with science. I think you need to know about him and liberal education than a quote, which speaks to us of the history of Athens and the war with Sparta, in which Socrates fought. All of this bringing us back to why education is essential to democracy! Democracy is rule by reason, and sometimes the reasoning of the people is not so good, on the other hand, the freedom and responsibility of democracy also enables everyone to achieve their human potential, and a well educated population can bring humanity to its full potential. However, this well educated in the liberal arts, not just technology.

[Greg H.]

You are right, but not just any law. On what I was calling the book is the date of the US independence. That means, when our constitutional government protecting our liberty was put into law.

 

I am going to nitpick here just a little bit. Technically, July 4 1776 was simply the date we declared independence. The current government the US has, based on the Constitution of the United States did not go into effect until 1789 after it was ratified by the states. Prior to that we had the Articles of the Confederation, which, as a form of government couldn't even get the states to pay their share of the national taxes, much less insure our continued existence as a country.

 

See US Constitution - First Government section

[Athena]

I am going to nitpick here just a little bit. Technically, July 4 1776 was simply the date we declared independence. The current government the US has, based on the Constitution of the United States did not go into effect until 1789 after it was ratified by the states. Prior to that we had the Articles of the Confederation, which, as a form of government couldn't even get the states to pay their share of the national taxes, much less insure our continued existence as a country.

 

See US Constitution - First Government section

 

Yes, I am aware of that and thanks for bringing it up. My post are already way too long, and the reason for doing a thread instead of a blog is to get everyone's input. It always makes my heart happy when others share important information on the subject of democracy. We did have the Articles of Confederation, but the huge increase in the powers of government came with the Constitution.

[doG]

Democracy is rule by reason...

Now you've stated that fallacy twice. It's high time you back it up!

[Athena]

+1 on the Baez Index.

 

Nonsense. I have a very good understanding of classical philosophy and history, especially the legal and jurisprudential side - these are not usual definitions.

 

Will you please stop being so beastly to the Germans - cultural shorthand is dangerous (unless of course it's Noel Coward). the same society that produced some of the the worst extremes of the 20th century also produce Hilbert and Einstein. As a great man once said Generalizations NEVER work.

This seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of laws as cause rather than human creation. The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding. the laws of physics are a human artifact to aid comprehension of nature - they do not bind, there is no arbitration; nature and reality just is! On the laws of human nature I would need one example that was universal throughout civilization before I could grant you that point. We humans interpret that reality and posit laws that nature and physics must obey - but you are quite wrong to think that the laws have any existence outside human (and/or alien) comprehension

 

You could try backing up your continued assertions with a few facts or references. The students in my classes have shown to me that young people today have a much more developed and nuanced understanding of morality and law that I had when I was in their situation and age band; and, I believe, better than most generations before them. When I read of the intolerance, race-hatred, homophobia, sexism, and bigotry that was prevalent in the era you are lauding I am proud and lucky to say that I lacked the education that made them what they were.

 

 

Universal (or near universal) participation in the law-making or law-changing process is an ideal that was never achieved in any decent sized polity. The reason our democracy is going to hell is because the old and rich are too damned powerful and the young have been hamstrung by the wealth and power of the old. We are more dominated by fear than for many years; fear of crime, fear of unemployment, fear of poverty - and I see this generalized irrational fear as being rooted in the mindsets of established generations and only percolating through to the young slowly.

Of course is it contrived - God is not a concept "stolen" by the religious and in need of reclamation. Your concept of God/The Law/Logos are all misuses of commonly used terms - it is you who are causing the confusion.

 

I totally love your argument! You wouldn't happen to be a male would you? I think we share many agreements, but understand them differently because we are of different genders?

 

It was Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. book, "Goddesses in Everywoman" who radically changed my understanding of the goddesses importance to democracy. Historically women have struggled to make their voices heard. Historically the best most of us could do was influence our children and perhaps our husbands. Yet, wisdom is associated with goddesses and the creation of civilization is associated with goddesses, and there is anthropological and zoological evidence to justify this. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice and the Defender of those who stand for liberty and justice. We know Athena as the Statue of Liberty, the Lady of Justice, and the Spirit of America brandishing the Sword of Justice in a mural of the gods in the US Capital Building. The Spirit of America, can also be known as morale, that high spirited feeling that comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. Our liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want, because that could mean destroying our civilization. Our liberty is only the liberty to do the right thing, and our laws are assuring we do the right thing and not the wrong thing, and what is right or wrong, is to be determined democratically, as we are doing right here and right now.

 

Athena, unlike the God of Abraham, did not give man laws, but taught them to govern themselves. However, Athena would have been nothing without her father Zeus. In a patriarchy, female power depends on males. However, before patriarchies there is evidence of matriarchies, and the bonobo are zoological evidence of the difference between patriarchies and matriarchies. Anyway, what we think is important and therefore what shapes our point of view, seems to be influenced by our gender, and while males traditionally ruled, females were the teachers, and we had liberal education, which is essential to our liberty and this education transmitted a culture that comes from Greek and Roman classics.

 

As for Germany this is the difference between a male God, the God of Abraham, and the goddess Athena. Germany was authoritarian and this is most certainly supported by the bible, and also by atheist who insist the only definition of God is the Christian one, and are just as authoritarian, and controlling as the church of old. We replaced classical philosophical with German philosophy, and most of these philosophers were Christian. True or false? Or maybe we shouldn't attempt to answer every question from a true of false frame of mind? Maybe our reality is paradoxical and confusing? For sure, the US defended its democracy against Germany in two world wars, and this was largely because the Prussian institutions organized Germany to be a military might, but after the wars, the US adopted these institutions. The foundation of Germany philosophy is both Christianity and the classical philosophies. You not seeing what I see in the classics, is a good clue to differences in perception. You see law, and I see the importance of education to our liberty. But let's now chew on our understanding of The Law.

 

This seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of laws as cause rather than human creation. The laws of physics do not govern the universe - they are merely a human attempt to model and formalise the underlying reality; they have no existence other than within the human pursuit of understanding. the laws of physics are a human artifact to aid comprehension of nature - they do not bind, there is no arbitration; nature and reality just is! On the laws of human nature I would need one example that was universal throughout civilization before I could grant you that point. We humans interpret that reality and posit laws that nature and physics must obey - but you are quite wrong to think that the laws have any existence outside human (and/or alien) comprehension

 

 

The Greeks were working on understanding the laws of universe, and what you said and I am saying, has every thing to do with logos and our liberty.

 

I should have done this in the beginning. Here is the Webster definition of logos that is the foundation of my argument. "In Greek philosophy, reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as made manifest in speech." This is knowledge of things like math and physics, and is the foundation of democracy. Before this understanding of math and physics, everyone understood things are as they are, because a god or goddess made them so. The God of Abraham comes from this unscientific understanding of the universe. So are all the gods of mythology, until the philosophers asked, "how do the gods resolve their differences?" Mind you, this question is asked after philosophers investigated how the universe really works, that is after math and conceiving of the atom. They concluded, the gods argue until there is a consensus on the best reasoning, and here is the point, the gods can not rule by whim, but are themselves subject to the laws of the universe.

 

Get it? The God or Abraham, like all gods and goddesses ruled by whim. What they did or didn't do depended on how they felt, and humans had a part in this. We could please or displease the gods and goddesses, and they would either reward us or punish us, depending on how they felt at the moment. But now, even the gods are subject to the rule of reason, The Law, the controlling principle that is above the gods. Up to this point, the Greeks ruled just like the gods who ruled by whim. Whoever held the most power ruled and he could do whatever he wanted to do. Sure this can be done, but as the philosophers came to realize, in the long run, this did not work so well, because there is a higher controlling principle, and we all experience the consequences of our action. As Socrates argued, it may take 3 generations to fully realize the wrong of our ways, but sooner of later, if we do wrong, bad things happen.

 

Logos, The Law, and democracy, which is people imitating the gods who are subject to the controlling force of the universe, and can not rule by whim. This is essential to our understanding of democracy and constitution. What is wrong today is we no longer understand this and foolishly think politics is a power game that some win and some loose, and our ignorant masses can be manipulated with very expensive control of the media, thanks to education for technology that does not prepare people to be self governing, but makes them dependent on authority, because this is the fastest way to develop technology and the military weapons of defense. But it is not good for democracy.

 

Christianity gives us a God who can rule by whim, and most conservatives worship this God, who can be bought off with sacrifices, prays and burning of candles. If we want to correct the problem caused by Christianity, we need to level the field with Logos as God, and from there, use logic to examine this God, this force that controls the universe, and leads to laws for sanitation, a standard for building broilers, and laws controlling how we distribute national resources, etc.. Democracy is suppose to be rule by reason, not a power struggle.

 

Now you've stated that fallacy twice. It's high time you back it up!

 

 

Declaring what I am saying is a fallacy, is not a legitimate argument. If you want to argue, you need to do so with your reasoning. What is the reasoning to support your argument that democracy is not rule by reason?

 

Perhaps, you would agree democracy is rule by law, because we boost of this all time. However, rule by law is a good thing only if the laws are good, and how do we know if the laws are good? This brings us back to our ability to reason. Our laws are based on reason, which is rule by reason, as opposed to rule by rulers who rule by whim just because they have have the power to subject others to their rule.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Athena

[Athena]

And will eventually kill many more. Antibiotics will eventually be overruled by unruly microbes. Landfills will eventually overfill and their concentrations of toxic matter will pollute all those areas we fought so hard to protect. Water from cleaning will eventually become saturated to the point of expense in filtration that is beyond our means. Sanitation is good, it is hardly God, or The Law, and neither is tunnel vision.

 

Huh, I don't understand your reasoning. How do you know any of these bad things will happen? Is it not by understanding how things work, and is not understanding how things work, understanding The Law, and are you not speaking of morals, the sequence of cause and effect?

[Xittenn]

Because we are observing these things happening now. Use of antibiotics has seen an increase in pathogen resistance, landfill space is always an issue, and what we can put into our landfills is constantly revised. The great lakes are increasingly more and more polluted by our use of the resource, as well as run off from farm land and other. What we see as good practice today may not be good practice tomorrow, hence they are not law. A thousand years ago having many children was a good thing, today it may be considered more appropriate to refrain from having children unless you are very dedicated to being a parent.

 

You are focusing too closely on how things were and applying them as a set standard when in reality there are very few things that can be taken for granted as a standard and even less with regards to ethics. If the world runs out of essentials it will no longer be appropriate to fight for the rights of the many, survival will be dependent on being a strong individual. We may not like the point of view, it doesn't make it any less necessary. And where you equate 'God' and 'The Law' is really a mystery, I have no idea what you define as either and how they are relevant.

 

You might argue that we are arguing the same thing, as you have alluded to twice now, but you argue it one way and then argue it the other in your next sentence. You can't say that The Law is to evolve or change, and then say that we need to maintain our practices the way they were because they are also The Law. Things can't change and be the same within a shared time frame. The best solutions to problems change, you can't accept that when it is convenient, and refute it when it no longer serves your purpose. This said we are not arguing the same thing.

[doG]

What is the reasoning to support your argument that democracy is not rule by reason?

Nowhere is the term democracy defined to be rule by reason. Go ahead. Google it. Point out any source that defines it as you do. It is by definition rule by the majority and has nothing to do with the majority using reason to rule, only the fact that they outnumber the minority.

 

Now, you are the one that made the assertion in the first place that democracy is rule by reason. It is not anyone's job here to support questioning your assertion. It is your job to support your assertion so get busy. Provide us some evidence that your definition is right and all the other ones are wrong because you are the ONLY one claiming democracy to mean rule by reason.

[Athena]

Nowhere is the term democracy defined to be rule by reason. Go ahead. Google it. Point out any source that defines it as you do. It is by definition rule by the majority and has nothing to do with the majority using reason to rule, only the fact that they outnumber the minority.

 

Now, you are the one that made the assertion in the first place that democracy is rule by reason. It is not anyone's job here to support questioning your assertion. It is your job to support your assertion so get busy. Provide us some evidence that your definition is right and all the other ones are wrong because you are the ONLY one claiming democracy to mean rule by reason.

 

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious?

 

 

If we are not ruled by reason, how many other choices are there? Do you like the biblicals explanation better? God, chooses the rulers and gives these specially chosen people His commandants, and all we have to do is obey like dogs obey their masters.

 

Is there another choice?

[Phi for All]

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious?

Think about it. If democracy was about us being thinking, reasoned creatures, then all our laws would be reasonable. This isn't the case at all. Democracy is more about representation of the people in it, and not all of those people are reasonable. It can only be hoped that the time involved in the process will help rational thought overcome initial emotional responses.

 

We may WANT democracy to involve rational decisions, and we may strive towards educating the people towards more reasoned thought, but the will of the people is not always rational, even with the process of democracy to temper it.

 

 

If we are not ruled by reason, how many other choices are there? Do you like the biblicals explanation better? God, chooses the rulers and gives these specially chosen people His commandants, and all we have to do is obey like dogs obey their masters.

 

Is there another choice?

Bringing up God again is a strawman, a version of the Red Herring fallacy. And this is also a False Dilemma. Of course there is another choice, many choices in fact. In a democracy, there are as many choices as there are opinions to represent.

[imatfaal]

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious?

 

Sorry Athena but doG is completely correct democracy is not rule of reason or justice, it is rule of the many. Any form of government requires us to be thinking creatures - not necessarily nice thinking creatures if you are talking about authoritarianism - but still zoon politikon. It is you who is failing to grasp the obvious flaw in your argument - your premise that democracy is the rule of reason is bust!

 

If we are not ruled by reason, how many other choices are there? Do you like the biblicals explanation better? God, chooses the rulers and gives these specially chosen people His commandants, and all we have to do is obey like dogs obey their masters.

 

Is there another choice?

You could make a fair argument for us being ruled by our emotions and our lust, governed by fear and despair, and driven into decisions by animal instinct.

[doG]

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious?

Do you realize that you are effectively asserting the majority of the people are reasonable? That the 51% of a given population, the rulers, are the reasonable subset of the total population? Is this really not obvious to you?

[immortal]

This is amazing to me. You got two votes for missing the obvious. The whole of democracy is about us being thinking creatures, capable of reason, and therefore political animals. Can anyone explain to me why evidently no one understands the obvious?

 

We expect in an ideal environment that a democratic system should be ruled by reason but this is not how the things are in the practical real world scenarios, we expect the people who we have elected to represent us to make reasonable arguments and come to a choice.

 

Let's take an example of a particular scenario where the ruling party requires another two votes to pass a particular bill about a very important issue:

 

1. Now if two persons from the opposition vote against the decision of their own party realizing that such a bill is necessary and is important that it should be passed on then they are the ideal people we normally want to see in a democracy since their choices were based on reason and on high moral grounds and they could've even decided to vote in favor of their own party and made sure that bill is not passed if it had many defects in it.

 

2. Now if the ruling party gives some bribe to those two persons in the opposition party and make them vote in their favor then by default they are going to vote against their own party with out even reading or understanding the bad and good outcomes and short comings of the bill.

 

In the latter scenario what mattered was, those two important votes to pass the bill not anyone's reasoning, this is how the things are in the real practical world. Majority wins.

[doG]

We expect in an ideal environment that a democratic system should be ruled by reason but this is not how the things are in the practical real world scenarios, we expect the people who we have elected to represent us to make reasonable arguments and come to a choice.

Small nitpick here. The U.S. is a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition, not actually a democracy.