[nutronjon]

This is Thomas Jefferson's thoughts about government, education, science and liberty.

Jefferson on education
Educating the People
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. Jarvis, 1820.
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.

The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom.
--Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.
--Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

[The] provision [in the new constitution of Spain] which ... after a certain epoch, disfranchises every citizen who cannot read and write ... is the fruitful germ of the improvement of everything good and the correction of everything imperfect in the present constitution. This will give you an enlightened people and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government.
--Thomas Jefferson to Chevalier de Ouis, 1814.

No Freedom Without Education
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
--Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816.
I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the conditions, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man.
--Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822.

I feel ... an ardent desire to see knowledge so disseminated through the mass of mankind that it may, at length, reach even the extremes of society: beggars and kings.
--Thomas Jefferson: Reply to American Philosophical Society, 1808.

And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.
--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Price, 1789.

Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, the people, if well informed, may be relied on to set them to rights.
--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Price, 1789.

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

[I have] a conviction that science is important to the preservation of our republican government, and that it is also essential to its protection against foreign power.
--Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1821.

The value of science to a republican people, the security it gives to liberty by enlightening the minds of its citizens, the protection it affords against foreign power, the virtue it inculcates, the just emulation of the distinction it confers on nations foremost in it; in short, its identification with power, morals, order and happiness (which merits to it premiums of encouragement rather than repressive taxes), are considerations [that should] always [be] present and [bear] with their just weight.
--Thomas Jefferson: On the Book Duty, 1821.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Hum, considering only highly moral people can have liberty, and morality is learned, the idea that teaching morality gets the opposite is distressing...

Who qualifies as "highly moral?" Who decides the qualifications? Would it be the leader of our democracy of reason, George W. Bush?

Originally Posted by nutronjon

...The morality follows this reasoning. The morality is based in understanding cause and effect, and that if we do bad, bad will follow, and when we do good, good will follow. That is the obvious definition of good and bad.

The obvious definition of good and bad is that if we do good, good will follow, and when we do bad, bad will follow?

There is obviously NO definition for good and bad in your statement. How is one to know what is good and bad? Who decides what is moral? Granted, for some behaviors we can easily find agreement, others are highly subjective and lead to fierce disagreement.

Generally speaking, there is very little definitive morality applicable to all human beings. Ultimately, even with intensive moral education provided (whatever that involves), morality is self applied, and there are no guarantees that any individual sense of morality will become the foundation for how someone chooses to make decisions in their lives.

This is why we have laws.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Okay, how this is done? If is done by authority over the people, yes the result is very bad. On the other hand, if you go about making the people moral, by preparing them to make good moral judgements, the result is very good. Notice in the word "conscience", is the word "science"? One of the meanings of "con" is "to know". So consciences is to know science. This would be science coming out of philosophy, such as the concepts of Socrates and Aristotle.

Vital to understanding democracy and the reasoning for liberty, is having knowledge of Socrates, especially regarding education.

When the reasoning is better understood, there will be understanding of Thomas Jeffersons passionate desire for the US government to provide universal education.

We’re still not quite on the same page.

The Tao is talking about enforcing morality - not teaching it. It’s like the harder you squeeze a lump of clay - the more you loose through your fingers. That’s kind of the theme that runs through the text. There is a difference between saying something is good (which obviously morality is good) and saying something is good for government to define and enforce.

It’s very much related to separation of church and state... (you're thinking of Thomas Jefferson aren't you ). It is not the job of government to tell people what their religion is. Nor their moral code. These are things parents teach their children. The text is simply saying that the harder a leader tries to "make" people moral - the less moral they will be.

I believe this is what the quote means. I think (considering your writing on the ‘thought police’ thread) that you would see some wisdom here. I know the writer was neither Roman nor Greek - but it still may be valid, no?

-modest

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by REASON

Who qualifies as "highly moral?" Who decides the qualifications? Would it be the leader of our democracy of reason, George W. Bush?




The obvious definition of good and bad is that if we do good, good will follow, and when we do bad, bad will follow?

There is obviously NO definition for good and bad in your statement. How is one to know what is good and bad? Who decides what is moral? Granted, for some behaviors we can easily find agreement, others are highly subjective and lead to fierce disagreement.

Generally speaking, there is very little definitive morality applicable to all human beings. Ultimately, even with intensive moral education provided (whatever that involves), morality is self applied, and there are no guarantees that any individual sense of morality will become the foundation for how someone chooses to make decisions in their lives.

This is why we have laws.

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better. Not a leader. I just got told to stop speaking of democracy and the Greek and Roman classics, because this is not an interesting subject, and this present discussion has turned so depressing, I want a lobotomy so I don't care any more.

Three cheers for science that is completely separated from thousands of years of wisdom, and no one gets what this has to do with NAZI Germany, and why the US elected Bush to office twice. God I am depressed.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better.

No, it is simply a consensus of the people in making government. In a population with more retards than intellects you end up with the worst reasoning behind the government. You really do need to spend more time at your studies before you run around the internet making such ignorant proclamations.

[nutronjon]

This post was deleted because it is my understanding I will be banned for linking to Cicero and Eisnstien.

That better well closes this thread, because I am forbidden for posting the most relevent information.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better. Not a leader. I just got told to stop speaking of democracy and the Greek and Roman classics, because this is not an interesting subject, and this present discussion has turned so depressing, I want a lobotomy so I don't care any more.

Three cheers for science that is completely separated from thousands of years of wisdom, and no one gets what this has to do with NAZI Germany, and why the US elected Bush to office twice. God I am depressed.

Nutron, are you aware of what you are saying? Science didn't get Bush elected president, the religious right did because they thought that was what god wanted! Bush has stated publicly that he is waging war in the name of democracy and God. the Nazi's were not atheists, they were quite religious, they thought that their god wanted them to do the things they did. they used this religious belief to do many horrible things. Science didn't make them do the things they did, their belief in their own superiority an their God's superiority was what promoted them to do what they did. They perverted science to show their own superiority and the superiority of their god. If God was the controlling influence of science we would still be burning people at the stake for believing the Earth orbits around the sun. Religion has always tried to control science and the results were always bad. Religion in control gets you crusades, Inquisitions, persecution of anyone who dares to disagree. Religion by it's own hand has been responsible for more death and horror than any other force in human history. Science should be defined by religion? I don't think so, if not for science and the free thinking people the world would be hell. I would never say you cannot believe in god, of what ever stripe you want to think of god but to say things would be better if we believed in and used god to define reality is simply wrong my friend and more importantly dangerous.