The U.S. is one of the world's oldest continuing democracies in the sense that it has a basically democratically elected representative government. Its spectacular successes have made it the model for the world but there are other historic instances where democracy has failed to protect the rights of those governed and has failed.

The most spectacular such failure was in Germany in the early 1930's. Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in a democratic election where the NSDAP (NAZI) party swept into power. It was solidly supported by the vast majority of German people even as it removed basic rights from segments of the population - all minorities and political dissidents - and led the world into the worst war mankind has ever seen.

What constraints, if any, should be placed on Democratic Governments?

Soc doesn't very often comment on current events, but this is important.

As I understand it, Egypt has a very complex politico-religious culture. The very conservative rural areas have always supported the Moslem Brotherhood - which is an old dissident organization - and certainly not democratic in its basic structure. When it got into power it began to persecuite other groups and there was a general uprising - mostly in the cities. The army - which since the time of Nasser has seen itself as the true saviour of egyptian culture - sided with the anti-MB protestors - with the obvious idea of preserving its own power - and has acted to crush the MB protests - a return to the way Egypt has been ruled ever since the British were thrown out. 
We have the rather difficult decision to either supporting the anti-democartic Army crackdown or supporting the MB - a group that hates us and generally favors anti-american and anti-israeli terrorism. Obama's comments seem to me to be pretty much on target.

What's your opinion?

Here's something I haven't seen discussed for a while:

Does Evil Exist?

Evil is defined as : Immoral, wicked, harmful, disastrous, bad, ill-reputed, etc., etc. Or the cause of the above.

You will notice that these pejorative terms are all pretty much culture-linked, that is what is considered evil seems to depend on the culture so that while each society has its list of evils, they don’t necessarily agree - and in fact may be at odds with each other.

 Islamism today is a good example. We consider the terrorist insurgents and religious terrorists as evil but they do not so regard themselves - As they see it, they are freedom fighters doing Allah’s will.

One aspect of evil is the idea that a person or persons willfully and deliberately violate their culture’s moral tenants - that is commit acts that they know are considered evil just to “be evil”; but even this kind of act is often for a purpose which the person feels is desirable or good : To gain admission to a group or to please God, or because the person is psychotic. (Can psychotics be evil?)

This raises the question of the existence of Absolute Evil - Is there any act or idea so evil that it is so universally condemned that no one would do it?

I am confused by the apparent confusion many (most?) of the Media Pundits seem to have about the present state of the world.

They express surprise and concern about world situations they see as unprecedented and unique, when in fact, these are long-standing or reoccurring events with obvious causality which have been know and described for decades. This confusion apparently stems from the strange belief that, for example, Economics drives Culture Change rather than the reverse.  

Karl Marx did the world a great disservice when he proposed this and gave the world a simplistic explanation of why the poor were poor and downtrodden while the rich were rich and influential were running things. He saw the historic changes and development pretty clearly, but ascribed their causes backwards.

Historically, all cultures/societies/nations/civilizations change as they are impacted by changing real-world situations which they must deal with. Morally and realistically, all cultures deal with change within the limits of their Basic Value Set - those fundimental beliefs which guide their decisions on dealing with changing problems. Often and inevitably, the current value interpretations, no longer seem to solve the current cultural problems as the culture moves through time and is impacted by technical, scientific, or other unforeseen influences.

What happens then is that the cultural values are reinterpreted and reapplied through the Social Institutional Framework in such a way that they can more satisfactorily solve the Society's problems. The institutional Framework is most often divided into the five great universal institutions: Family, Education, Religion, Economics, and Government; each of which has part of the responsibility of applying the culture's value interpretations to solve the culture's problems.

No one of these institutions is primary, though is all cultures some are regarded as more important than others. These institutions do not drive society, they are the frameworks through which societies function. When culture/society changes, they change their interpretations. This culture change is always accompanied with social unrest which hashes out the new interpretations through general discussion and argument. Some culture members always demand more and more change while others demand a return to "The Good Old Days" with the older value interpretations. Neither of these extremes get their wish, the reinterpretation is always the result of compromise.

What direction do you think American Society should take: Embrace changes in such areas as Immigration, recognition of all sexual orientations, firearm ownership and use; or resist these new and radical changes in our fundimental lws and beliefs?

Members seem to be leaving Xanga is increasing numbers. Soc will continue here as well as his mirror sites on WP and LJ - but some response to his posts would be appreciated. If you no longer think Socrates Cafe is relevant, say so - a sort of vote of no confidence.

This is a "retread"from 2010. I've posted it at all three sites ( This one, Word Press and Livejournal)

What is Beauty?

"It is strange that this question has not found a larger place in philosophy and psychology. Every heart has heard the call of the beautiful, but few minds wonder why. The Greek found it in youth, sculptured symmetry, or calm; the Romans in order, sublimity, and power; the Renaissance found it in color; and modern souls find it in music and nature. Everywhere an at all times, people have been moved by beauty of some sort, and have spent many lives seeking it."

So said the historian and writer Will Durant many years ago.

Soc says: My pupil, Plato, associated beauty with the ultimate good. to him the beautiful could only be the highest moral good. He more-or-less rejected art and music as beautiful. Only that which was inhumanly good was beautiful.

Marcus says: That which is beautiful has its source of beauty in itself, and is complete in itself. Praise has no part in it, so it is none the worse or better for being praised. That tells you much about that which we call beautiful - it does not depend on our recognition - but we cannot help recognzing it.

Bucky says: When I complete a project or solve a problem I recognize its rightness by its beauty. Beauty is a feeling from within.

Will says: There is beauty in language; perhaps in its patterns and the images it projects. We seem to have a liking for the symmetry - so also in our love of music.

Soc says: How about the rest of you. What do you think makes beauty?

I hope Xanga doesn't collapse but if it does I've set up a sort of mirror site over on livejournal:

Socrates_cafe2   if you are interested.

LJ is pretty easy to use. I'll start posting some new questions both here and there shortly.

In many nations today, there seems to be a move away from governmental concern over social welfare. Rising political movements seen to focus on shortening or canceling many social welfare programs, even those which seem to benifit the entire nation. Even the U.S. - one of the richest nations in the world - has a growing political presence demanding drastic reform or even repeal of many social welfare programs which have demonstrated positive economic and social benifit to the nation as a whole.

To what degree is a nation responsible for the welfare of its citizens? How should this responsibility be expressed?

So......What makes a good teacher?

Like my namesake, I have been a teacher for the greatest part of my life. I think I know something of the art of teaching and also the part Education plays in every culture. It is one of the five basic institutional frameworks (Family, Education, Economics, Religion, Government) which every culture uses to keep itself going.  Education varies widely in its form - in some rather primitive cultures, it is the responsibility of the immediate family, but in most it is the responsibility of the entire culture - often administered by dedicated specialists (teachers).

Socrates was such a specialist - his entire life was dedicated to that which all good teachers desire most - the collection and dissemination of knowledge. All his philosophic concerns were expressed by his attempts to encourage his pupils to acquire more knowledge, understand it, and apply it to their lives. When truth seemed to differ from the accepted beliefs and dogma of his culture, he encouraged his students to follow truth wherever it led; which ultimately led to his death.  A surprising number of modern teachers have taken their calling just as seriously - including those at  Sandy Hook Elementary, six of whom died trying to protect their very young students.

A serious problem with American Education today seems to be a loss of focus and major disagreement on the what and how of teaching. The very idea of how you teach seems to be questioned. Communities are perfectly willing to take a lot of time from teaching just to measure what the students have learned - often with little or no input from the teachers about what they have actually taught. They are supposed to have taught the required skills, knowledge, and attitudes demanded by culture, however, there is major confusion and disagreement on what these actually are. Politicians seem to have the idea that modern students should be taught just what they were taught - only better; and certainly not anything they disagree with. Some think students are to be taught how to think - a noble idea, if you have any idea what you are talking about (Think about what?).

Most think schools should somehow make the U.S. a stronger place and encourage economic growth by imparting those skills that will be needed in the future (Whatever they are) - never mind the interests and intellectual growth of the student. And, by the way, never mind those who are not intellectually directed - that's obviously the teacher's fault, so let's reward those teachers fortunate enough to teach parent or self-motivated students who go along with the program.

What's your opinion of the present American (or World for that matter) education system? How could it be improved - or should it be completely redone?