This topic can be either gloomy or hopeful, depending on your viewpoint.
If an individual is born, lives, and does nothing to influence other people, than her life has meaning only to her, as does her death. There are probably not many individuals who have lived such a benighted life. Almost everyone has had some influence on someone else and to the extent that others are influenced, so is that person's life and death notable.

On the other hand, to the individual his life has the meaning and importance he gives it. The scholar who dedicates her life to the understanding of some obscure backwater of knowledge (assuming there are such) or the monk who lives a cloistered and silent life of contemplation still may be quite contented with the meaning they have chosen for their lives.
Even the philosopher who decides life has no meaning at all may be quite pleased and satisfied with his pronouncements and the recognition they have gotten.

Is the foregoing correct? Is the meaning of life only what we give it, or is there some independent universal meaning?

My wife and I are in the process of completing cataract surgery. Our Ophthalmologist left us no choice - he didn't ask if we would like the idea - he just said "I am scheduling you.... The time has come"
Of course we were reluctant. Who wants to have a hole punched in their eyeballs and all the hassles of eye patches and head braces and strange glasses?
Well, turns out our perceptions were a little out of date. They still punch the hole - with a needle so thin you don't even require a stitch afterwards. Through that single hole the surgeon first inserts an ultrasonic probe that shatters the lens, then a vacuum to suck out the old lens. He then inserts a new rolled up plastic lens with hooks to hold it in place. The entire process takes ten to fifteen minutes and the whole prep process takes about an hour. They do one eye at a time with a 10-14 day wait between eyes. You are home and admiring your new visual world in time for breakfast.
It takes a couple of days for your "new" eye to clear but Oh! the difference. New colors are the first thing you see.
This surgery is fairly cheap as modern medical costs go - about $2400/eye, and well worth the cost.
We should have had it done years ago - now we will be able to see where we're going this summer on our annual drive to Maine.

Recent events have made prevention of school shooting incidents a major part of the public agenda. I have few suggestions to start some discussion:
1. Campus Control seems to be a buzzword. Access to many school campuses is much more rigidly controlled than even a few years ago but it is unlikely that even the most careful checks can completely protect students and some of the regulations and laws recently enacted seem to be excessive. In any event, protection of school children is spotty at best - have you ever seen a school bus with seat-belts?
2. Empowerment of teachers and supervisors has been suggested as a practical way to protect students. Many teachers seem to feel they have no obligation or power to protect their students or at best only a passive attempt to shield them. Few teachers will today wade in to a fight to break it up - especially if weapons are involved. there is little or no training in self-defense or physical action in most teacher training.
Also when a problem seems to be starting, many teachers will be instructed to keep their heads down and not make waves. I once had occasion to be a wave-maker and was responsible for the removal of a murderer from the school system - He was later convicted of eight murders of young girls. Incidentally, he was hired as a policeman by two different police departments before his actions were discovered (Wilton Manors, FL and Martin County Sheriff's Dept., as I remember), and after I had had him removed from our school, I got considerable hassling from his college and the school system but I stood my ground.
3. Balancing freedom and safety is a difficult task. Even if we kept the students in steel cocoons for their childhood it is unlikely that we could protect them from senseless violence and growing up sheltered would certainly not ready them for the world they live in. Teaching them to be alert to danger signs and how to avoid trouble is about the best we can do.
4. Gun control is probably not a very good answer. In the first place it is very unpopular in America and in the second place, it probably would be ineffective in preventing a really dedicated sociopath from his actions. To be sure, countries with strict gun controls have fewer gun-related homicides but there are an estimated 40,000,000 guns in private hands in the U.S. today, so the question is moot.
5. The Attitude of Helplessness which seems to pervade our society can be overcome. On the planes of the four 9/11 suicide attacks, the passengers of only one seem to have fought the hijackers and partially thwarted their mission. During the VT attacks last week, the shooter must have re-loaded multiple times, during which he was relatively helpless, but apparently no one dared to actively resist.

If you were in a position to protect children from an attacker, what would you do?
Have you had the training or experience to actively resist an attack?

If by time travel, you mean physically moving someone forward or backward through time, science says it is theoretically possible (See string theory) but implementation is highly improbable.
We do move around in time frequently however, that's what memory and recording devices are all about. We even move into the future with our imaginations.
I've long been a sci-fi fan. My first subscription to Analog Magazine (Then Astounding Science Fiction) was in 1947.
Check out some of those old stories from the forties and fifties, you'll be surprised at how accurate the predictions sometimes were.
In the play "Our Town" the dead characters were allowed to re-live any day of their lives. Most tried it only once, if you remember. Revisiting a personal time is generally painful - even the most happy time - if you know what is to follow. Visiting a historical era would be fascinating - but as an observer, not a participant; and if you go back or forward any large amount of time, you have the language and culture problem to deal with. You might easily misunderstand what you see or hear.
Visiting the beginning of your religion is a good example of how visiting a time shrouded in myth and tradition can upset your belief; as it's unlikely that the descriptions of founding times have remained unchanged down through the millennia. We tend to re-interpret all our basic beliefs and values from time to time and I'm sure Religious ones are no exception.
If I could travel back in time, I think I'd check out Palm Beach County in the Spring of 2000, just as they were making up the infamous "butterfly ballot" which so dramatically changed the election outcome. Maybe I could persuade them to adjust it a little

One of the questions for discussion at Socrates_Cafe this week is: What is the relationship between consciousness and conscience?
At first glance it might seem that the two are not very closely related; after all consciousness refers to awareness and sensibility of a person, their inward thoughts and feelings leading to self-awareness.
Conscience, on the other hand, is the personal recognition of right and wrong - the faculty which enjoins a person to apply a moral code to his actions.
Somewhere in these two definitions you are likely to come upon a phrase similar to this:
"The moral consciousness of a Nation"
Oh My! Is National consciousness somehow related to morality? National Morality?
Let's talk for a minute about the present state of morality in America.
We have a fairly strong moral code which we continuously berate ourselves for not adhering to rigorously enough.
There seem to be built-in conflicts in this moral code, which we've discussed here many times. The present political conflict regarding Iraq is in all the headlines today (and probably will be for the foreseeable future). Congress and state legislatures are debating the morality of Abortion, Stem Cell research, Homosexuality, et al. Church amplifiers ring with denouncements of the same subjects - and many more.
Is there a relationship between consciousness and conscience? You bet there is - and it impacts you every day of your life.
What responsibility do citizens have in this area? How should they make their moral choices? What should be the base of these moral choices?

I'm taking the long view here. History may label our time as:

1. "The End of the Industrial Revolution and the Beginning of the Electronic Era"
The Industrial Revolution dramatically changed the life of all humans (and everyone else) in the World. People lived better and longer in some cases and had a more wretched life in others as their nations industrialized. The landscape of the world was greatly changed by ecological and mineral stripping, pollution, and pockets of overpopulation.

With the beginning of the electronic era, solutions to the supposedly inevitable ecological downturn and collapse became more conceivable, but politics, tradition, and national rivalries made these difficult to implement and we saw the beginning of the:

2. "Age of National Instability" The Age of the Rise of Nation States ended with multiple revolutions and civil wars which led to the rise of "Modern Particularism", that is the demand for each ethnically separate group demanding autonomous rule and the migrations of large numbers of humans fleeing warfare, famine, and persecution.
This caused the :

3. "Age of Collapse": All those problems of the world-wide industrialization came together: Overpopulation, Pollution, Global Warming, Natural resource depletion, National and ideological competition and warfare, all led to severe economic, political, and mass human migration changes which strained world civilization almost to total collapse.

All in all this seems to be the historic period which demonstrates the truth of the old Chinese curse:
May You Live In Interesting Times

Politics has been called the "Art of Governing". If this is true, then politics had better be conducted according to the moral precepts of the governed society or the "art" becomes tyranny - or worse.
The problem lies in both the nature of the political process and the nature of morality. If the culture has rigid moral standards accepted by almost all of its members, then most politicians would be morally upright and all honest politicians would be moral and there would be no problem. The dishonest politicians would be pretty obvious and fairly easy to weed out.
The problem in our National culture is partly the problem of any Democracy.
A democracy has certain basic agreed-upon precepts. among these are:
1. The concept of equality of worth and the equality of the worth of all citizen's opinions.
2. In our democracy, the presence of elected representatives responsible to those who elected them
3. The concept of direct election to replace representatives who no longer have the confidence of the electorate with those who the electorate approves and believes has their best interests at heart.
4. The concept of Majority rule with consideration of the rights of the minority.

In a multi-group society, such as ours, partly the problem is of Moral interpretation.
There are conflicting intreprtetations of "What's moral" that have been around for centuries - hence the problem.
Conflicting moral interpretations are notoriously hard to reconcile and politicians depend on some agreed-upon basis for consensus.

Government in a Democracy is supposed to be mainly by consensus, which means basic agreement on policy and basic agreement on the actions of the government, even by those who originally opposed the policy or action.
The job of the politicians is to act to reach that consensus or as close to it as possible and to persuade the opposition to accept the democratic majority's polities and actions.

In our democracy the multiplicity of views and interpretations of moral truth makes the job of the consensus building and persuasive politician extremely difficult. In practice, all citizen's opinions are NOT of equal worth and it is fairly easy for the unscrupulous political leader to organize a sizable group to support his agenda, even though it is basically immoral. If the majority wants to ignore the rights and feelings of the minorities, they often find it easy to "re-define" moral principles to support their decision and it is almost impossible to slow or stop these actions.
Even though the government may lose the confidence and support of the majority of citizens, they still may have years of their elected terms to serve and they may feel no responsibility for the hostile electorate. As the government is made up of politicians, all politicians may be (and often are) tarred with the same brush.

As the electorate splits into smaller fractious groups, often with many conflicting ideas, the politicians representing other groups are often despised and regarded with suspicion, making any consensus building less and less likely.
Situations like this make the job of politician less and less attractive to those would be most likely to perform the job best. Nowadays, becoming a politician in America demands a remarkable amount of dedication or alternatively, a massive ego.

One of the current discussions on Socrates_Cafe is:
How does talent differ from creativity, or are they different aspects of the same condition?
Perhaps Creativity is a Talent, but nevertheless, a distinction is often made.
An obvious distinction is that of a musician and a composer. Many talented musicians have tried unsuccessfully to compose and I suppose the reverse is true. Some very talented musicians have their quite mediocre compositions performed because of their fame - I suppose that's why there is so much bad music out there.
Along the same line, the same kind of difference exists between Artists (painters) and Commercial Artists, though the difference may be a narrow one. The difference seems to lie in the ability to see new and different approaches to the subject as opposed to the ability to perform in a technical manner in a way far superior to that of the average person attempting the same performance.
This extends to almost all areas but sometimes the distinction is difficult to make.
Does a good teacher necessarily have to be a creative teacher?

" Are humans capable of developing a close, loving, sexual relationship with more than one partner at a time? What forms should these relationships take and should they be recognized as a form of marriage? "
This is one of the questions asked at Socrates_Cafe this week"

A simple answer might be "Yes, but...."
These kinds of relationships have a few problems:
"Loving" relationships are, if not taught by societies, at least culturally defined - let's take a simple definition of sexual or erotic love, as that's what I'm talking about.
Love: "A selfless passionate affection for another person combining devotion and affection with sexual desire"

In a loving relationship, this erotic love is mutual, deep, abiding, and all-encompassing between the partners.
If there are only two, this mutual affection is easy to understand and reciprocate, but if another person or two become involved, the relationship becomes much more complicated. Now each partner must feel the all-encompassing affection with each of the other partners.

This sometimes breaks down because of some sort of competition between the partners. Historically, here in America, this has been solved by strict supervision of the relationship by religious or social authority as in the case of the early Mormon Church or the Oneida Community, to cite two famous examples. Other cultures which encourage or support polygamy, such as Islam, have fairly specific and rigid rules of acceptable marital behavior. The question of a "Loving" relationship is seldom addressed; the focus seems to be on following all the rules, and in the case of Oneida, at least, loving relationships were discouraged.

About thirty or forty years ago one branch of the "Hippy" movement began to organize groups and communes where everyone was encouraged to do their own thing and rebel against accepted behavior norms. This post-pill, pre-AIDS era was a time of a lot of experimentation in multiple partner relationships.
I personally know both participants in, and children of, these relationships, most of which were fairly short-lived and broke apart partly because of sexual tension and jealousy and partly because they were economically unstable.
While the partners "fell out of love", their children often remember those times fondly and did not seem to have been harmed by their parents'multiple relationships.

There are communes which have remained - like the Twin Oaks Community, which is still a going concern after 39 years. This Commune's start and early development is well described in Kathleen Kinkade's book "A Walden Two Experiment" (Wm Morrow, 1973) and his been the subject of a Master's dissertation as late as 2000. They have an active website Twin Oaks Community.
There are currently several groups of polygamist advocates active in America today, some religiously oriented Christian Polygamy , and some non-religious and somewhat more open:Seattle Group. The Seattle group even publishes an on-line magazine called "Loving More".

In 2002, The Los Angeles Times reported that there were more than 30,000 polygamist unions among Mormon Spin-off groups in Southern Utah and Arizona. At least some of these seem to be religiously-ordered unions of fairly young girls and older men and there are several groups organized against this type of relationship. In most of the interviews and news reports about these situations, there is little or no talk of love and affection between the partners. Most girls in these relationships have a positive attitude about them however.

To sum up, it isn't hard to find reports, interviews, and discussions of multiple partner love relationships where the partners firmly express their belief that they are in a loving relationship and are content despite the considerable social and legal pressure they face. These people think it's possible to have a loving polygamous relationship, do you?

Almost all nations differ from almost all other nations, though many share common or similar environments, basic culture, and ethnic background. Europeans, South Americans, and Southeast Asians are members of many different nations and sub-groups but all three cases they seem, at least to an outside observer, to share many of the same values, much of the same culture and religion, and seem to have a similar ethnic background.
This similarity is missing to a great extent in America. The U.S. may have been settled by North Europeans hundreds of years ago, but this group doesn't even make up the majority of Americans any more. Today America is a very diverse collection of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants, all of whom brought their customs, languages, and ethnicity with them. By a sort of common consent, English is the common language, but throughout our history there have always been whole communities of non-english speaking immigrants and their children.
American racial, religious, and cultural diversity is probably greater than any other country, and when you think about it, Americans are recognizable throughout the world because of their peculiar attitude and demeanor which is a result of this diversity.
Because we are a nation of "Cast-offs" who have somehow become the world's dominate power, we tend to think very highly of ourselves and seem to have decided that if we could come so far so fast, we must have the right answers for the entire world.
Our attitude toward language is a good example. Somehow we have decided on English as the "best" language for all these diverse immigrant groups, more or less crammed it down the throats of new arrivals and tend to be very annoyed when anyone anywhere dares to speak some other tongue. Surely such people must be somehow deficient.
Strangely, most of the world humors us here.
I was once briefly in a small elementary school in Southern China and in that small school in the world's most populous nation, the teachers were attempting to teach their very young charges some rudimentary English. I have no idea what use they could put this knowledge to, unless they decided to continue their education in which case it would probably be a necessity.
This social attitude of Americans has recently carried over into our foreign policy and as we now seem to be, at least in the minds of some of our leaders, in the era of "The New World Order" in a position to do real harm to the rest of the world simply through our own self-centered attitudes.

How can The United States remove itself from the present war in Iraq? Should it remove itself?
That's one of the questions for discussion this month at Socrates_Cafe
This question brings up a number of other questions for consideration:
Who's running things in Iraq?
They now have an elected government in place with a large standing army and police force, but we and the insurgents still pretty much call the shots in Iraq.

What were/are our mission and objectives in Iraq?
We rid the country of Saddam Hussein and Baathist rule but apparently our original objectives were to somehow create a "Friendly Democratic Outpost" in the Middle East and to use that nation to control the more objectionable efforts of Iran and Syria - and, Oh Yes, to rid the area of Weapons of Mass Destruction and al Qaeda operatives.
Iraq does have a democratically elected government friendly to us and there are no WMDs. Iran, Syria, and al Qaeda seem to be doing pretty well, however.

What did/do the Iraqis want?
To be rid of Saddam (at least most of them did), a measure of democracy and peace, the end of discrimination against Kurds and Shia, control of their own country.
They did get rid of Saddam. Right now they would probably settle for peace, law, and basic utilities as they had under Saddam. Now the Sunnis have to worry about discrimination (and genocide).

Arguments against our leaving include the idea that we would somehow be "Cutting and running" or that we must fight terror there or we will have to fight it here.
If we were to leave tomorrow, next month, or next year, or at all for that matter - we will be "cutting and running", that is cutting our losses and removing ourselves from a situation we did not foresee, do not want to be part of, and, considering our other world commitments, can not afford. What's wrong with that?
As far as the "fight terrorists there instead of here"- Remember they struck here first and an army in Iraq will hardly protect us from another terrorist attack - might even encourage it - as they were apparently upset over our influence in the arab world to begin with.

Would setting a timetable to leave Iraq or denying more funds to that war somehow show lack of support for our troops there?
Certainly not. Since this is a political decision, it, if made, would lead to re-definition of our troops' mission in Iraq and the withdrawal would certainly be in good order over an extended period - sort of a drawdown as we turn the country over to the Iraqi government. I assume we would fully support any UN resolve to send "Peacekeepers" in if they are needed.

What would leaving Iraq do to our reputation in the rest of the world?
Probably help repair it.

How do we want to be known in the civilized world and has our Iraqi adventure made us more or less respected?
What's your take on this?

You'll note I have not suggested any detailed plan for withdrawal. Such a plan would be quite complicated and include both military and political decisions which would have to be made over an extended period; but the answers to the questions above would certainly indicate our basic policy. Apparently currently most Americans agree with my somewhat simplistic views.

I'm going to focus on a "Gap" that influences or concerns most Americans. One that all politicians mouth platitudes over and make promises about and sometimes even make a half-hearted attempt to modify or bridge.
This Education problem seems to be the result of wide-spread belief that:
1. Education is the key to advancing your social status, income, and security
2. The U.S. Educational system isn't doing a very good job at meeting the country's needs.

To a certain extent, these beliefs are true. A college degree is still the key to advancement into the "upper" classes
(unless you are born into the top upper class, in which case you get a free ride).
After World War II and the coming of the GI Bill, college enrollment swelled beyond anyone's expectations and the college degree as an entrance key somewhat diminished, but still is important.
This college expansion had a ripple effect down through the school system and demands for "better" schools and teachers ran into a very solid road block - funding. We suddenly discovered that we were getting what we paid for and with more gender equality, the system was no longer being subsidized by bright women and we were not paying enough to reach our desired goals.
At the same time schools began to be forcibly integrated. This integration was supposedly racial but was actually primarily social. Students were bussed out of their neighborhoods, which led to much less community support of the local schools and less willingness to pay for the needed improvements, or even to maintain current standards. Cities saw a flight to the suburban districts by most who could afford to move, which further reduced support and school funding.
Today we have a widely varied system of public schools, most of them under local control and either grossly underfunded or jealously guarding access to their local schools while giving lip service to the "No child left behind" concept but quite willing to see their neighbors' children left behind if it means lower taxes for them.

How to bridge this gap is an interesting social (and philosophic) question.
First, do all of us want to bridge it? After all, "our" children's superior education and college degree does give them a step up the class ladder, if that's what we think the primary purpose of education really is. If our children are among the disadvantaged, what can we do to lessen the gap?
Can we really educate everyone as far as they can go intellectually without disrupting the social order or bankrupting ourselves? Should the "social order" be disrupted?
A few years ago the prospect was bleak, but modern computer and internet technology has made bridging this gap a possibility - but it would mean re-thinking the entire role of education. How, if learning means interacting with a computer monitor, do we socialize our children? Who will determine curriculum and content? How will education be funded?

Charity is a fairly widely misunderstood term which we currently seem to relate to private contributions to people or groups working with people less fortunate then ourselves. The idea of charity is one of our basic values here in America and giving is considered a Good Thing.
Historically, the concept of charity probably started with tribal community help efforts where some tribe member who had a misfortune was helped back on his feet by the rest of the tribe. This became a more-or-less religious obligation and was often controlled by the religious leaders but with the development of larger and more urban cultures, it often became part of the government's responsibility. In some (mostly Eastern) cultures poverty became a sort of religious condition and all members were urged to support the religious leaders who had to give up all their worldly goods and live completely on charity. Modern examples are Buddhist monks, who must beg for their food every day.
Early Christian groups followed Jesus' command that they care for their neighbor and carried the idea of charity somewhat further than was the custom in their time setting up guest houses and making extraordinary efforts to succor the poor and infirm.
During the Middle Ages, most charity was administered through the Church but with the rise of powerful governments and the Protestant Reformation charities became more and more secularized and the religious teachings of charity became part of the basic value system of Europe. The idea of "poor houses" and government help for those citizens who needed it gradually magnified into the Social Insurance programs most developed nations have today.
Probably here in America the next great step in government sponsored social charity will be Universal Medical Care.
Curiously, such a "Socialized Medicine" program will probably result in much lower over-all medical costs for the nation, as has happened in the case of Medicare for old folks - a program which essentially pays for itself and certainly keeps old folks healthier and out of the poorhouse.
Is this going to be a good thing?

This week Socrates_Cafe is asking the question: What is Success? How should it be obtained?
Success is defined in the OED as the final step in an undertaking - the end of a succession of events. That ending does not necessarily have to be satisfactory.
Our modern struggles and world situation provides a fairly good example of "Success" in action.
Right now we are in the end game of what may turn out to be a military and political blunder which even exceeds that of the Viet Nam War - one with more lasting world changing results.
A major point in the current discussion is the idea of succeeding in our efforts in Iraq. President Bush has said he will not cut and run, he will not surrender, he will stay until "the job is done" and seems to be contemplating sending even more troops into that horror of a war.
At one time he declared "Mission Accomplished" but made no effort to pull our victorious troops out as his administration apparently hoped to somehow go on to transform that unhappy and divided country into a sort of bastion of American-style democracy which would stabilize the middle East and end the Arab-Israeli controversy.
In the ensuing years we have defeated and captured a bloody dictator, turned him over to Iraqi authorities for trial, encouraged and enabled a country-wide democratic vote which elected a new Iraqi government, and poured billions into the rebuilding of Iraq.
At any time the U.S. could declare victory and remove our troops, but as Johnson and Nixon did in Viet Nam, we have hung on longer in order to achieve some unattainable "success", apparently without ever considering the basic moral problems involved or the historic culture and desires of the Iraqi people.
Apparently our President is now seriously considering increasing the troop level by thirty or forty thousand and using our military might to crush resistance in the Anwar provence and Bagdad, though how this would lead to an end to the conflict is puzzling - after all we did that once and it did not work. This without consulting the Iraqi government which we have set up and which now wants us to begin leaving, not adding more occupation forces.
Is such a success the end we envisaged when we attacked Saddam? Will it be successful? Will we be happy with the outcome?

How would a philosopher define Perfection? This is one of Socrates_Cafe's topics this week; I found researching it very interesting.
There are apparently three major philosophers who fixated on Perfection, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus Christ.
Aristotle attempted to develop a logical description of the world and included his concept of "Substance" as the basic ontological unit and this, he thought involved form and matter. He saw God as the actual and pure form. His concept of "Potentiality" includes the idea that all material substances are in the process of moving toward "Actuality" which would be perfection. This re-doing of the Platonic concept of the abstract or universal form as opposed to the material is perhaps the reason why Aquinas attempted to carry his logic into a full understanding of Christian thought.
Jesus Christ is seldom thought of as a philosopher, but his basic premise was that God the Father was Perfect and that men were likewise to strive for similar, but proportional, perfection. Humans were to live with utter integrity - purity of heart; they were to live with a whole-heartedness that excludes pride; they were to be sensitive to others, sensing the oneness of oneself and others and minister to human needs. They are to love one another. The philosopher Erasmus perhaps is the best writer on Christian philosophy.
Since the middle ages, Perfection has been pretty much the focus of religious thinkers, so is not much addressed by most modern philosophers. the Existentialists seem divided on the concept, some ascribing it to God and others simply as an ideal concept, not applicable to the real world.
I think most of us have a vague idea of perfection as a sort of ideal state of final potentiality; something we can and should strive for but seldom reach. This is probably taught to us as a kind of basic value.
I was surprised to find few philosophers even contemplating the possibility of human perfectibility.

The role, purpose, and practice of Religion has changed fairly dramatically in the Developed part of the modern world.
Rapid transportation, more rapid communication, and the rising standard of living have all left their mark. This is nowhere more apparent than during the Christmas Holidays.
The United States and most European countries are now multi-ethnic societies with multiple religious faiths and sects represented so that what was once a primarily Christian celebration at the beginning of winter has now become a holiday celebrated by Christians and non-Christians alike.
This holiday has for centuries been a time of gift-giving and family renewal. Gifts mean purchases (most often), and purchases means business opportunities. Modern communications technology mixed with this means an overwhelming bombardment of advertising and many think the original meaning of the holiday has totally disappeared.
Not so. The Religious celebration is still there, still celebrated by the devout, and still has the same meaning. It has, however been combined with a massive joyous year-end celebration which, In my opinion, increases its importance.
What do you think?

This week socrates_Cafe is discussing the Nature of Religion and how the Religious Experience has changed in modern times.
Religion is one of humankind's most ancient social institutions. I have in my hand a cast of a 15,000 year-old Aurignacian "Mother Goddess" similar to the famous "Venus" of Willendorf. This small crude figure is considered indisputable proof of the existence of some kind of religion in early Homo Sapiens. Along with the family and the tribal group, Religion is one of the corner-stones of Human society and some sort of religious institution has been part of every culture we have any record of.
This ancient Social Institution seems to have always had two important areas of responsibility: Defining the metaphysical and explaining the unknown and as the Culture's guide and keeper of moral and ethical values.
Early humans felt themselves to be threatened by a world they only dimly understood and in almost every culture they imagined super-human entities which they empowered with god-like power and qualities - or so anthropologists have deduced from their studies of artifacts and existing primitive cultures. The God or Gods were always fitted to the problems of the culture and so tended to be very different. In early historic times, when cultures began to interact, the various religions almost always insisted that their particular understanding was that which all members of their culture must adhere to so we have, for example, the beginning of the Ten Commandments where God commands the Hebrews: "You shall have no other gods before me" and "...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God..." (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5).
If inter-tribal strife was not started by religious differences, the religious leaders of the tribes certainly urged their tribe on in the name of their god. The famous German military belt buckles of World War I (Gott mit Uns) are late examples of this as is the current Iraqi conflict.
In modern times, Religion's role in defining the unknown has somewhat lessened with the rise of Science, Logic, and Rationality; but religions still jealously guard their role as keepers of morals and arbiters of acceptable behavior.
Religious leaders have recognized and understood the power of the human basic physical and psychological needs such as assurance, security, and love and have moved to direct, influence or control these drives, sometimes conflicting with other cultural institutions such as the civil government.
Religion seems to fill a human need, but religion also often demands orthodox conformity and in a culture which encourages individual thought and liberty, especially one with multiple competing religious sects, Organized Religion sometimes acts against the best interests of the society it is supposed to help direct and encourage.
Would humans be better off without Organized Religion?

This is one of Socrates_Cafe's weekly discussion questions; like most of them it can be answered on many levels.
If your life's philosophic base is fairly existential, than you can say that uncertainty is primal and the only certainty is that which you make for yourself. Certainly the modern Quantum Mechanic/physicist would agree with you.
If you are more theistically oriented, you may either be certain of your salvation, or along with Calvin, uncertain and concerned about whether you are one of the Elect.
I think age plays a part in your attitude toward life - us older people become more certain of our future and the inevitability of life's end, while youngsters are mostly uncertain about what life holds for them while at the same time considering themselves immortal.
A person who considers himself a Rationalist may find he looses some of the security of his logical mind as he delves into the farther reaches of modern science. Perhaps that is one reason for the rising interest in the security offered by "Intelligent Design" and religious teaching that offers a degree of certainty in a world that seems more uncertain every day in every way.
After all: What certainties remain in our world today?

One of the discussions on Socrates_Cafe this week is: Is it better to know, or to feel emotions?
This is a basic philosophical debate that has existed since before the time of Socrates and is still current today.
To the ancient Greeks, Apollo represented the epitome of Order, Rational thinking, and balance; while Dionysus represented Passion, ecstasy, rapture, impulsiveness, and destruction. Other religions have similar representatives: The Hindu God Bhraman, called the god of philosophers and the God Shiva, representing change, destruction and rebirth are examples. Christianity appears to lean toward passion and ecstasy though Order and balance are also mentioned.
While most of us might say, with Nietzsche, that some kind of fusion represents the highest state of a society, we seldom live up to this ideal and tend to lean more toward passion than rationality. Perhaps this is because Rationality offers scant comfort during troubling times while the release of our passionate feelings - "letting it all hang out"- is very satisfying. Many times this has been carried to anti-intellectual heights, as during the Middle Ages when reading and writing were restricted to a very few religious individuals and Carnival with all its excesses was encouraged.
I think here in America we have made a sort of religion of Dionysian excess. We tend to distrust public leaders who appear too rational and admire the passionately involved leader.
While an argument can be made for the merits of ecstasy, a rational consideration of consequences might be a good idea. A balance of knowledge and emotions should probably lean more toward knowledge, shouldn't it?

This week Socrates_Cafe is discussing Civil Disobedience and the nature of Heros. I'll address both here.
When is civil disobedience (refusal to abide by the laws of your state/society) justified?
What is a Hero?

Thoreau claimed that we should never obey an "unjust" law. We should use our moral and ethical understanding and beliefs as the measuring rod and refuse to support or obey any law that didn't "measure up". He also thought we should be willing to take responsibility for our actions and be willing to accept whatever punishment the law meted out for such disobedience, trusting that our moral courage would be recognized and help overturn or alter the injustice.

Socrates, according to Plato's work Crito thought that civic responsibility included a social contract between the state and the individual that demanded that the virtuous man obey the laws, no matter his opinion of them.
In some circumstances civil disobedience has led to dramatic changes as those in India due to Ghandi's actions; but in a democracy, where the ability to change the laws resides in the voter's will, there is little justification for civil disobedience. Rather such behavior most often suggests a selfish desire for immediate action rather than the tedious effort necessary to change a law.

As a Hero is considered to be one who embodies the best moral values of the society and who by heroic effort changes or benefits the society dramatically, societies tend to see successful disobedient activists as heroic even if they were despised at the time, some of yesterday's villains may be tomorrow's heros.

Nations tend to recognize individual citizens who have made extraordinary effort or sacrifice for the good of the nation as heroic; the military even has a sort of heroic classification system with awards for varying degrees of heroism ranging from the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Bronze Star and Purple Heart Medals.

Heros certainly are agents of change. Whether or not they are the prime movers or the embodiment of larger social forces and movements is a matter of debate - i.e. Did Napoleon change the makeup of European civilization , or was he simply the personification of the revolutionary spirit of the age?

1. Traditionally, Legislative representation has been from a geographic district. Is this the best way to insure fair representation of all voters?

From time to time this question arises in all representative governments. Geographic based representation has much merit under certain conditions: The voting citizens should all have a sense of community and think of themselves as a homogeneous group. The area represented should be fairly compact with a small enough population that the representative can get a sense of his constituents' needs, desires, and thinking on most important subjects.
Geographic based representation does not work well with a large multi-group area or one with a large minority. In such a case fairly large numbers of constituents may not be fairly represented, or at least feel that they are not.
If the representative is to represent a large number of voters or a large area, it is certain that he cannot know the feelings of most of those he represents.
In order to prevent this, various political tricks have been used - the most notorious being the Gerrymandered district where boundaries are drawn to include all members of a minority in a single district.
An example is the 23rd congressional district in Florida where the district is sort of dumbbell shaped with the two parts separated by several miles and linked by a narrow strip running down a railroad track. This gives South Florida's Black population a sort of guaranteed seat while removing the responsibility of representing them from other nearby districts.
Representation by special Interest is another type suggested. For a brief time in the late nineteenth century France experimented with syndicalism (Representation by labor unions and guilds), but this didn't work out very well. currently in Iraq, parliamentary representation seems to be mostly by tribal and religious affiliation; a fairly common type of representation in non-democratic countries.
Representation by social class is an old tried and true method that was much used in monarchies and aristocratic- based governments.
In the Soviet Union representation was a sort of stair-step affair with local soviets electing representatives who in turn elected district representatives who in turn elected regional.... and so on up to the Supreme soviet. While this looked good on paper, it was subverted because the entire power resided in the Communist Party which took all its orders from the top down - including who could run for office at each level.
Currently, here in the U.S. most Congressional representative districts include in excess of 600,000 people, far too many for any sort of personal association, so organized groups resort to lobbying; spending millions in the process and sort of guaranteeing that we will have an oligarchic- based representation which pays little heed to the wishes of its geographic base - indeed spends much time and money trying to persuade them to the special interest's viewpoint.
How could, or should, this situation be reformed?

1. What is the purpose and meaning of History?

2. Is Progress a delusion?

1. The purpose and meaning of history
This might sound like a simplistic question, easily answered: Obviously its meaning and purpose is to record what happened so that we can learn from our past mistakes.
The problem, of course, is what do we record? Everything? Not likely.
What we record of history depends very much on our value system and the use to which we will put the records. If our goal is instilling a sense of patriotism in the young, then our history schoolbooks will be inspiring records of the brave actions that have made us great. If we intend to show ourselves as the favored of God, our History is that of our religious trials and triumphs.
Various philosophers have based their understanding of the world on its history as they saw it.
Karl Marx, surely the most important philosopher of history of modern times, focused on the economic struggle between the haves and have-nots throughout history and attempted to show how the struggle could be resolved. Hindsight shows how limited his grasp of the world's history really was as well as the dangers of focusing on only one social institution as history's prime cause.
Among the Modern and Postmodern philosophers, history is very important as their assumptions about the world's present situation is at least in part based on the "Control of History" brought about by the prevalence of electronic media with its evanescence and the commercialization of knowledge.
On a more basic and personal level, what is your attitude toward history? Why do you have that attitude and what would it take to change it?

2. Is Progress a delusion?
Hmmm, what do we mean by progress? - more gadgets doing things faster, with less effort; or a raised standard of living with fewer hungry and sick people in the world; or perhaps some kind of moral progress toward a safer, happier, more "perfect" world.
Throughout history, we have tended to believe that we were somehow "progressing".
During the Dark Ages of Europe, when people lived demonstrably poorer lives then had been possible during the height of Rome's power, Europeans consoled themselves by thinking of their Spiritual and moral progress. As the Enlightenment dawned, philosophers seized on their rational and logical progress in the Sciences and the benefits this brought to their world. They tended to ignore the plight of most Europeans, more and more of whom lived in filthy, unhealthy poverty as the Age of Enlightenment became the Industrial Age.
Today we might ask ourselves if we are really better off than our ancestors?
Are we happier? Healthier? Wiser? What kind of a World do we want and what are we doing to achieve it?
You'll notice how Progress and History are intertwined here. A love of knowledge really does mean a love of History.

This week's Socrates_Cafe questions include this one:
Religion currently plays a major role in world affairs. How much of a role should it have, in your opinion, and how do you think it should be regulated?

Religion, as a primary institution of every society, has always played an important, and often primary, role in relations between nations and cultures, as well as sometimes dominating its own culture or nation.
Cultural conflicts are often religious in nature, or at least have a major religious component. As religions and sects are often competitive or opposed to each other, they are sometimes the primary focus of conflict as they seem to be in Iraq currently.
Here in the United States we have chosen to protect religions from the intervention of government and thus from the possibility of being persecuted by any religion which manages to dominate the government and there have been only a few short periods of our history where there has been open inter-religious warfare - most notably those involving the persecution of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) during the mid-nineteenth century.
This cannot be said of most of the rest of the world, where open religious warfare has been almost continuous for most of recorded history.
While supporting the idea of religious toleration, the United Nations has been almost powerless to stop or prevent religious persecution. The present conflict in the Darfur area of the Sudan is a case in point. The Sudanese government yesterday ordered the UN peacekeepers to leave the area which has led to major escalation of the war there.
As religion almost always cloaks its support for violence in moral justification, it is unlikely that any attempt to control or curb religiously motivated violence can succeed without overwhelming military domination - and that as history has shown - is only temporary.
As long as various religions accept the necessity for violent action against other religions or sects, the best the world can hope for is a sort of religious detante with a grudging agreement to "live and let live"Â. Such accords are always temporary.
In my opinion, Religion's role in society should be restricted to moral exposition and comfort. The moral statements should never include the demands for orthodoxy of those "non-belivers" who choose to opt out of the religious rules. Laws regulating behavior should not have a religious basis.

The topics for discussion this week include the questions: What are the virtues of Democracy, What is Democracy's most serious problem?
I think the primary virtue of Democracy is that it allows the Institution of Government to be more closely controlled by the will of the people governed, either directly, as in the New England town meeting (Yes, they still have those, and they make some important decisions right on the spot by direct popular majority vote of those present and voting) or through elected representatives who are selected for a limited time and are subject to recall if their governing displeases the voters.
This leads to another, sometimes overlooked, virtue: Mistakes in governing decisions can be corrected much faster than with other forms, as the governors seldom are quick to correct stupid or wrong decisions they made in the first place - Democracy forces them to do this if the voters so decide.
Another of Democracy's virtues is that the people of the Democracy are more likely to feel responsible for their country's actions and take part in the civic process.
In my opinion, the most serious problems for any Democracy are lack of interest, knowledge, or understanding of the process.

Is it possible to truly "Know Thyself"?
The answer to this depends on how deeply you want to look. There is no way you can be truly objective, but a person can certainly be realistic in their self-evaluations, even though many (most?) of us avoid self analysis as this must include our embarrassments and failures as well as a realistic look at our motivations and successes.
Many of us have a close friend or partner who is ready and eager to help us evaluate our personality but their perception is also always subjective - such evaluations can be helpful, as can those who are critical and perhaps unfriendly toward us.
The trick is to be as objective as possible in evaluating all these conflicting reports while also considering how well we assess ourselves as matching up to our own system of moral ideals and expectations.
I think older people tend to be more realistic in their self-evaluations; perhaps as a result of added life experiences. Any comments on this idea?

This week's Socrates Cafe question is: What is a life well lived? As this may be the last week of discussion in the Cafe, at least at Simone's site; I think it is notable that this is one of Simone's final questions for discussion.
A life well lived must be viewed from both personal and public perspective.
From the personal viewpoint, a well-lived life must be one which gives you much personal satisfaction, is lived with personal integrity according to your personal values, and is filled with continual curiosity and intellectual development. Such a life should also be filled with Love, Joy, and Happiness, both yours and those you relate to.
From the public perspective, a well-lived life should be admirable - a model for others - considered one that contributed to society in a meaningful way. Such a life should also spread joy and happiness to others as well as made their life better in some way.
How many of us can, in your opinion, say we have lived such a life?

This week's Socrates Cafe discussion question is an oft-pondered one; probably because it has so many personal answers, each depending on the psychology and situation of the individual.
Personally, I think an ideal life philosophy should have the following characteristics:
1. Obviously it must be personally satisfying.
2. It should be practical and achievable.
3. It should be one that does no deliberate harm to others, either physical or mental.
4. It should include intellectual growth and curiosity as primary elements.
5. It should include a strong moral content
6. It should include a healthy and active lifestyle.

I've answered this from the point of view of an individual; but enlarging it to include the life philosophy of a Society or Culture would probably not change it much.
Albert Schweitzer, the humanistic philosopher often mentioned his personal philosophy: "Resist Not Evil". I'm not sure I could completely agree with that extreme view, but it is an interesting one.
I'll ponder this a little more and see if I can come up with an equally pithy phrase.

Why do Humans Create? I’ll talk about creating Visual Art in this post. The visual arts are a universal, well understood example of the nature of human creativity.
Humans are not the only tool-using animal but we are far and away the most proficient at tool making.
For perhaps a million years, the main tool in the human kit was the fist-axe - at least that’s about the only obvious tool that’s survived. These flat oval chunks of (mostly) flint had a sort of point at one end (for easy grasping) and a flaked-off sharp edge on the big end and seemed to do the job as far as dismembering dead prey and splitting their bones for marrow. Anthropologists have demonstrated how useful and efficient the fist axe was, dismembering and cutting up quite large animals.
Several thousand years ago other tools and objects began to be developed and these often seem to have primitive decorations - at first just scratches and inscribed dots in patterns but eventually evolving into rather clever carvings and molds of human and animal figures. eventually, twenty or so millennia ago these developed into the spectacular cave paintings and carvings associated with early Homo Sapiens.
This early art had two purposes, if the analogs of modern primitive tribal people is correct.
The first is Decoration. Humans seem to like to make their artifacts and living spaces “prettyâ€. This seems to satisfy some kind of psychological need in humans, we probably can not help decorating any more that a Bower bird can.
The second is Inspirational and Sacred. Humans derive much psychological satisfaction from creating something which inspires them to awe perhaps worship or at least acts as a reminder of the sacred.
Our Art has from time to time been fairly rigidly representational- at least as representational as we could make it, and at other times (and places) almost completely symbolic or stylized. Currently in our culture we have many different types of representational art ranging from completely realistic and photographic to almost completely symbolic - computer icons are examples of the latter.
Could humans thrive in an environment completely devoid of Art?

This is a short entry, I'll add more later if there's any interest.
I think here in America, our problems with environmental responsibility have two major roots:
1. A fundamental American Value is that of the right of the individual to make his own decisions and manage his own property as he sees fit. As we've grown as a country, we have restricted this right more and more following the principle that "your right to swing your fist stops short of the other guy's nose"; but environmental management has now reached the point where almost all activity comes under some kind of restriction (or at least concern) and our strong Individualist Values make us uncomfortable with restrictions.
2. The Earth is a large place and just how much humans do impact the basic environment and how much they can do about it is still either unclear or not accepted by most of the world's human population. We know the Earth has undergone many environmental changes since its creation, some apparently due to cyclic causes, some due to natural catastrophes, and apparently some due to the pollution caused by overpopulation of certain species.
Just how we can or should approach this problem is very much open to debate; should we back off from fossil fuel use - move to atomic energy- use renewable resources - change our way of life?
All these ideas are proposed, how do we persuade the humans of the world, or at least enough of them to make a difference to become environmentally friendly? Can anything we do really make a difference?
What are your thoughts?

Can Religious conflicts be resolved? How?

Religion is a central institution of any culture and as such is a fundimental part of the belief system which holds the culture together. Most cultures use this institution to declare and preserve the moral structure of the society and most cultures accept a single religious sect as being the only “true” or “correct” one and often tend to condemn other sects.
When you have a society with a number of religious subcultures, as America has always been, there is inevitable tension and misunderstanding among the different groups.
The founders of the United States were certainly well aware of the problems of conflicting religious ideas and values - after all, the country was founded in part by settlers fleeing such conflicts - and expressed much concern over the problem of religious incursion into politics. At least two of the original thirteen states had been founded by dissenters from the religious politics of Puritan Massachusetts.
Their solution was to severely limit the evolvement of religion in government and they did it in such a way as to protect religious diversity - which they thought admirable - by making it fundimental to our laws that the government was prohibited from “making any laws respecting religion or the free exercise thereof”. This prohibition had (and has) the effect of removing religion from direct political action (except symbolic) and has done remarkably well in encouraging the growth and diversity of religious movements in the U.S.
Keeping religion totally out of politics has proved impossible, but because of our constitution, religious sects have (mostly) found it very difficult to impose their agenda on “nonbelievers”.
One reason for this is the moral belief in the importance of individual rights which is also fundimental to our society. This has traditionally be in applied to religious beliefs also, which makes it hard for us to deal with other cultures which have neither religious diversity or any respect for the individual.
Our attempts to impose our values on such cultures in the name of Democracy, have led to disasterous results in some cases.
The conclusion I have reached, is that fundimental religious differences are just that, too fundimental to be bridged, and are best handled by understanding the differences and withdrawing from the conflict.
Personally, I try to be tolerant of other’s religious beliefs, no matter how personally objectionable I find them, but I understand how hard it is for many to understand or accept beliefs which their religion preaches as wrong, abhorrent, or sometimes evil.