I definitely am not in favour of censorship. The issue of philosophy being used in a negative way was simply something which I was thinking about the other day. I am sure that people are better with philosophy than without it. In my case, the biggest problem is that I overthink but it may be better than too little thinking, although overthinking can be a recipe for insomnia.

When I am speaking of the question of 'dangerous' ideas, like the Nazi's on one hand and the question of knowledge as questionable I am probably referring to conflicts in assumptions which have appeared historically. These have been tensions arising at different juncture and are connected to a mixture of fear and changing knowledge, especially in the rise of scientific discovery.

Some of the tensions may be due to the interplay within science and religion. This may have been based on the rise of humanism. Sometimes people speak of humanism as if it is identical with secular humanism. It is not as simple because it goes much further back and was interconnected to a lot of debate which emerged linked to theism and atheism, as well as agnosticism. There was also the conflict between rationalism, which was emerging in science and the romantic movement, from which Nietzsche's thinking stems.

The Nazi movement was connected to the development of ideas within Germany which may have been more related to cultural tensions, especially between Germans and Jews. It is likely that this provided a ground from which certain ideas could have been grasped in support. Hitler was influenced by theosophy and, Jung, who had an interest in the esoteric also wrote some ideas which adopted the view of the superiority of the German race. His own disagreement with Freud was also relevant in the context of the friction between Jews and Germans. Even though Hitler is the figurehead of this, the tension was about implicit cultural war

Also, the emphasis on the distinction between the right and left path is probably related to the political aspects of esotericism. Certain ideas may have been in the hands of the privileged elite and in the hands of organisations such as the Rosrucians. In addition, the emphasis on development of one's potential in esoteric thought may have been discouraged because it goes beyond the following of groupthink and is about exploration.

When I speak of the various 'dangers' it is in the context of many human beings having access to so many ideas so easily. If anything, the biggest danger may be one of confusion. In addition, one's own psychological state may come into play. For example, when I got particularly depressed by nihilism it was in the time of lockdown. So, it is not just about ideas 'out there' but in relation to one's own experience and circumstances.

As facts are not always straightforward at all it seems to make sense that some are drawn to different philosophies. It is likely that there is selective bias and people seeing what they wish to see. Perhaps, it is why philosophy seems to be so much of an area for heated debate, with the emotional side involved in the process of logic itself. The emotional aspects beyond logic may also explain why some people change and modify their ideas and perspective through life rather than simply on the basis of rational analysis.

I find it hard to make up my mind on so many ideas, as well as decisions, and it can be difficult when so much time is spent ruminating. I definitely agree that different people are drawn to different philosophies. Part of that is based on psychological issues, but there is the issue whether any philosophies are dangerous intrinsically or not. It is likely that there is a clear subjective aspect, just like with music taste. I do find that nihilism leads me to feel depressed, but I know that there are some who are happy nihilists.

I definitely agree with philosophies as 'a way of life', including the development of habits or as a basis for practice in life. That seems to make them more than abstract principles. It may be that dogmas are a main source of ideas being treated too concretely and without careful examination of their usefulness in life which can be a basis for them being turned into ideologies.

It is probably not possible to separate the 'truth' of ideas from their effects completely. It may be that people need to see some benefits to some kind of belief to pursue it at all. It is just that some ideas may reap more benefits than others and it may not be apparent immediately but seen more clearly retrospectively, including learning from mistakes.

While ideas are needed to be evaluated on the basis of 'truth', to see this as the only matter seems onesided. I am not saying that it is beneficial to be happily deluded or for people to believe lives. It would be ridiculous to go that far, but I am suggesting that some concern or attention should be paid to the effects and repercussions of the impact of ideas on psychological and social aspects of life.

I am glad that some people are working on this area Even though it may be regarded as of lesser importance than 'truth', I am sure it has some value for consideration because ideas have profound effects in life beyond whether they are right or wrong logically.

That is the complexity of it and I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy. I am not trying to exaggerate, but the emphasis on science, especially in understanding consciousness, almost seems to regard philosophy like an appendix, as if it is some outdated add on aspect to consciousness. It is as if thought itself is not seen as the basis, even though concepts are based on ideas, which cannot be reduced to matter.

That's fine, because the thread which I wrote a long while ago popped up out of the blue again. Perhaps, it is time for me to explore new and original ideas...Keep well, and try not to overthink, because that may be what I do.

Best wishes,
Jack

It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery?

As far as I see it, so many do try to look to neuroscience, as if it is 'chocolate frosting'. It does raise big questions about causation. Some may get carried away with the novelty of ideas to thre point where it glosses over the surface so much. The understanding may require greater analysis and that may be where philosophy will remain important in sifting through and making sense of it all, as an elimination of potential nonsense.

The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination?

It may be about brainstorming and finding new ways of focusing, and even alternative ways of seeing and perception. The lens through which we see may change on account of the ideas which are developed. The philosophy of idealism or realism, for example, may alter everything just as the camera did. So, both thought and the sensory basis of perception may alter the way in which all aspects of life are observed or understood conceptually.

I am afraid that the accounts which I have read of Nietzsche's death have been blurry. I have been left with a muddle of his death as involving organic factors and the existential struggle. The complex tension of this may apply to the life struggle of Nietsche, but also be relevant to that of human beings, but as subjects struggling with suffering, as sentient beings grappling with meaning and ideas.

The idea of multiple discovery, as shown in the link is important because it may be that the truly important ideas arise in the understanding of many disciplines rather than any one alone. This may be in connection with systemic understanding, even if a 'theory of everything'. is not possible.

The idea of reasons is connected to the development of language. It is the basis for logic and concepts. Rationality and reasoning are done on that basis but that doesn't mean that other aspects, such emotions don't come in as well, and irrationality. It is one thing to be able to find reasons and that is a starting point for philosophy and another to follow them always. It may be easier to come up with the a posteri or a priori aspects of reason than to live according to Kant's moral system. So, human beings are rational but even then human reason is limited and it probably requires a lot of discipline to develop reason to its furthest possibilities.

I think that your post asks some important questions about the nature of human beings reflecting on understanding it all. In particular, 'What hangs on the existence or non-existence of God' It is not easy to answer and it may be more rhetorical rather than anything else. However; it was the sort of way which I was thinking when I wrote the thread outpost. It is more about what was signified in the emergence of the idea of God in human consciousness.

Even though it is slightly aside from most discussions about the existence of God, one book which I think is important in connection with the development of ideas about gods or God is Julian Jaynes' 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind'. That is because Jaynes looks at the evolution of thought in human culture. He sees the development of picture representations and language through the form of song and poetry initially. He also sees the way in which human beings in ancient times had a less clear distinction between inner and outer reality. Thoughts were projected outside as coming from gods, and Jaynes sees Moses receiving the ten commandments in this way.

Human understanding is so different from ancient times and, generally, belief in God is used as a source for rational explanations. This goes back to Aristotle's idea of God as the initial form of causation. The idea of both cause as well as the way of understanding reality, including the development of differentiation of subjective and objective realms may be important in thinking about the initial basis for belief in higher beings or 'the divine' emerged in human understanding.

When I spoke of shallow atheism, I was referring to scientism and materialistic determinism.

I am sure that if I had not been surrounded by so many people who come from religious backgrounds I would not have thought about the issue of God like I do. I remember when I went to primary school there were not that many other religious children. Some religious teachings were expressed, in school assemblies mainly, but it was in the background. I remember when they knew that I went to church and catechism classes they often couldn't relate to it. At age 12 I chose to go to a Catholic school and I had been confirmed as a Catholic at age 11, having had my first 'holy communion' at age 7.

So,it is probably not surprising that when I got to doing later studies that I ended up with clashes of ideas. I really did struggle making sense of it all and I had friends who developed religious psychoses. Strangely, with a couple of friends who I am still in touch with, when they are well they do not question religion philosophically. I know one who believes in the literal story in Genesis, including a 7 day creation and an actual person called Adam and Eve. I stopped thinking that while I was still at school.

Even in the hospital where I worked with so many African Christians, there were many patients being admitted with religious psychoses. Somehow, the extent of ideas about God, heaven and hell do have far reaching effects on the development of core beliefs. I do know a couple of people who grew up in schools where philosophy was taught, and not just religious studies and these couple of people are theists. Even though there is a certain move towards secular society there are very strong religious systems of ideas. It is hard to know what direction people will go in the future because religion and the idea of God is so strong in captivating and affecting human understanding.

Your own development of ideas, including pantheism, is interesting in the sense that it goes beyond the shallow aspects of atheism. Both theism and atheism can be fairly shallow, backed up with very little sound logic. In some ways, some accounts of Buddhist metaphysics make a lot of sense to me as being neither based on ideas of an actual God or scientific materialism. However, I do understand there to be some debate between idealism and materialism.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. When I told her about a thread on the forum about religion she said that she didn't know that philosophy included thinking about religion at all.

Most of my friends in real life are theists. One gets cross with me for even raising any questions about the existence of God, as if it is as obvious that God exists as the world is round. Some of my friendships go back to when I was a teenager and, at that stage, I was far more of a devout believer than they were. I even have one friend who became a Jehovah's Witnesses and a couple of Muslim friends. I do have one friend who is an atheist and I found talking to him helpful as a balance with having so many friends who are Catholic or Christian.

When I was working in mental health care I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. I found it just too much and really don't like it when people begin preaching because it seems so authoritarian. Really, I do find that the discussions on religion on this site useful in general but there are times when there are just too many 'God' threads dancing around on the front page.

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. From my reading of Jung I came to see the Judaeo- Christian picture developed in the Bible as an image. My mother told me how at times she used to imagine God the father as the old man and Jesus as the young man.

Ultimately, it is about representations. There is the question as to whether God created human beings in his own images or whether humans created God in their own image. In this way, it is like the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Some people have argued that God is like a person. The OT image of Jahweh was as a person, and wrathful, with Jesus being the figurehead of compassion.In a lot of ways it as of the gods or God is a projection of human understanding and changes. Now, it may be that science has taken over where religion left off. The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations.

The issue of guilt is central to Christianity, especially with the idea of original sin. I definitely struggled with guilt at times, but I am not sure that guilt is the main problem in life and wonder if as Schopenhauer and Buddhists argue that the hardest aspect of life is suffering.

I can remember thinking some time just over a year ago when I was using the forum, why are there so many threads looking at the existence of God. I was reflecting that it was a matter of choice whether people choose to believe that there is some kind of higher force in the cosmos. I was thinking how futile the arguments for and against it. I tried to pay less attention to the threads about God. However, I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. If anything, I do query why people get fierce arguing for and against God when it is difficult to prove one way or not. But, it is probably because it is an issue which is emotional, because it is central and some see clear reasons to believe in God and others for seeing it as so destructive. I am happy to hear both sides and I am more inclined to have battles in my own mind about the matter rather than with other people.

Religious beliefs can be used in all kinds of ways, especially politically. That realisation was a motivating factor which I found important for questioning theism. However, at the same time it is a little separate from the actual question of whether there is a God or not. I found Gnostic interpretations of Christianity more workable than the literal ones. I have come across Tillich, and Whitehead, as well and that kind of approach seems to make more sense. Generally, I don't consider myself as an actual theist, but I do find my ideas shift, especially in relation to whether there is some purpose behind the scenes. However, I am aware that it may be magical thinking.

I am probably more inclined to wonder about the possibility of God when things are going well for me and others than when everything is going wrong. However, I do still pray at times and have religious friends who often advise me to pray. My own kind of prayer is probably more a kind of silent meditation rather than the more conventional kind, like the ones recited out loud at church.

I definitely began with the perspective that God is 'truth'. I came from a Catholic background but with an open mindedness to other forms of Christianity initially. However, I began looking at other religions, especially Eastern ones and that was when it all became much more complicated. It was also when I saw some of the negative impacts of religious beliefs, especially guilt, and so many contradictions. Then, I found that I began deconstructing what had formerly appeared to be 'truth'.

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed.

I stayed out fairly late last night and wasn't lost. A friend who was trying to call me last night was extremely cross with me with me though and I hadn't taken my phone. I had not got lost like my Radcastle Station story. Meandering around has always been my tendency and getting lost at times seems symbolic in the quest for authenticity and in philosophy. I wonder if many other people get lost literally as well as in the confusion of philosophical uncertainty.

Actually, I will admit that I go into dark dungeon states of mind at times. I try to be proactive and try and find my way out before the dungeon gets darker and darker. Music and even a glass of wine. I most probably would have been completely chained into the dungeon during the second lockdown in England if I hadn't found this site, as some of that time I was using it almost from the time I got up until I went to bed. Some people don't seem to end up in dungeons whereas some have dungeons and mazes constantly. I also get lost physically at times, since wandering off into unknown places in childhood and I still sometimes get the wrong bus and end up almost anywhere. My mum used to speak of me 'going off the planet'.

The idea of not being one's true self may be the exaggerations of conformity. However, it is true that there are various sides to oneself which can be projected in different situations. I remember my mother saying that it is when you live with someone it is that you really know someone. She was meaning that people relax their fronts at home and are seen at various points, like when they get up first thing in the morning. I know that I feel barely human until I have my first coffee.

One aspect of self projection which is also worth discussing with you is the professional role personas put on, especially as mental health professionals. I remember when I was doing my mental health nursing training, a tutor told the class that we would find that our 'self' would change by the time we had qualified. To some extent, I thought that I changed, especially in what I said or shared with people, especially patients. I was never that sure about the idea of being a role model, because each person is unique. I do act and think a little differently out of work, mainly in what I disclose about myself. I am less tidy in appearance at work, although I don't think that I presented myself in a corporate way.

At present, I am not working and I would rather pursue a different path to being a nurse, but I definitely would consider still working with people with mental health issues. As it is, at present, because I am not working I have probably gone a bit outside of feeling that I think and act like when I was working. However, I still live in the area where I worked. This means that I meet people who I nursed in the past. They still come up and talk to me, and many don't know that I don't work in the hospital now, so when I am speaking with them, I do feel that I am back in the mental health nurse persona in a conscious way.

The use of the word self may vary. It may be that there is no actual entity which can be spoken of, as the Buddhists argue. However, the idea of being one's true self may be more of a loose description, meaning that one is developing one's potential in a genuine way, as opposed to being chained by rigid demands of specific social roles and expectations.

Yes, the issue may be who one is objectively or as one thinks one is or as others perceive one to be. It reminds me of a model which I remember being described in a model called Johari's window. Johari describes a quadrant based on self known privately, known to others and self, and the final box is the potential for the unknown aspects of oneself to be known to self based on the feedback from other human beings. It does lead to a closer relationship between subjective self knowledge and the objective.

However, it still may be open to question whether there is any real objective knowledge of any self because it is connected to the development of opinions, even if there is general consensus.

The search for authenticity and knowing oneself may still result in the experience of the dungeon state, as described in the poem.

I suppose when I speak of the potential defeat about authenticity it is not really the principle of authenticity but the underlying goals which have not been achieved. These are more about the tangible or practical implications rather than in practice rather than in theory. It is possible to seek fulfillment in an authentic way but end up unhappy with the reality of what occurs in real life.

Some may argue that the authentic self is an impossibility but that is probably an exaggeration of the situation. People may not always be seeking authenticity in principle or by name. However, it is likely to be going on beneath the surface of conscious living because life involves trial and error. Making mistakes in life may be one of the side-effects of human life and the biggest snakes may arrive before the ladders. So, the only alternative to authenticity might involve giving up in defeat. So, most people struggle on and some have more failed experiments in life, but it is part of the learning curve of being a human being.

I probably do too much navel gazing and it can be hard to spend too much time thinking or acting spontaneously. In the first place, when I left school I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster and couldn't get a work at all until I had done 3 voluntary jobs. Part of the difficulty can be getting the balance right. Some people seem to be able to make clear plans and follow them through consistently, whereas others seem to need to find direction more slowly.

However, even though navel gazing can be detrimental in some ways, it is likely that there is a lot going on unconsciously or subconsciously. Some people seem to be born with more of a leaning to live a life of questioning, with philosophy being an important part of this. It seems to make sense for those who are inclined towards philosophy to have more of a life of searching or otherwise philosophy would be simply an academic discipline, detached from the experience of life itself.

Doing what one enjoys doing is definitely a sign of being on an authentic path. I remember a couple of jobs which I did briefly which I loathed, trying to do my best. A friend was suggesting to me that I should try to cope with these as best as I could in order to make a living and concentrate on enjoying my free time. It didn't really work and I don't think that my managers thought very much of me. However, in one of the jobs I was told that I needed to do all the tasks which had been done by a previous colleague. I didn't feel that I was being given any opportunity to develop my skills in a unique way.

Some people seem to manage to do day, or even night jobs, in work which they detest. I am not able to do this easily and in some ways I wish that I could. If I dislike doing something I do badly at it, even going back to when I was at school I found this. I remember when I got 17% in a chemistry exam. Fortunately, my parents weren't particularly bothered because I had got a lot of other good marks and I never pursued chemistry beyond age 14. Some people seem so adaptable but all along I was inclined towards authenticity.

It is not just about jobs but also about relationships. If one doesn't enjoy being with another person on many levels it may be best to not pursue them too far, as it may be a disaster waiting to happen. I remember on my mental health nursing training course there were so many marriages between students and most of them collapsed by the time the course ended. I am inclined to try to avoid relationships if they don't feel authentic and social interaction which seems lacking in meaning.

It is a challenge to throw aside all the ideas of oneself relating to others' opinions. Even if one seeks to do it, I wonder to what extent it is possible because as a person one is involved in group situations throughout most of life, like being part of an intersubjective bubble. It operates on so many levels, from early relationships with others to feedback during interaction and even basic fundamental values.

Perhaps, the possibility of it remains more so if one has secret aspects of experience, not shared with anyone. Also, one way of stepping outside of the network of narcissist self construction is in reflective writing because it gives a certain amount of distance, and seeing beyond what is projected onto oneself by others. Also, time in solitude may aid this, and it is possible that those who are less embedded in groups and group consciousness may be in a better position to become aware of a 'true' self as an ongoing nature of awareness.

I am fairly impressed by the Buddhist idea of anatta, or no self, and Buddhist philosophy of mind in general. I have just begun reading a book called 'The Mind Illuminated', by John Yates, Matthew Immercut and Jeremy Graves (2017). It is an exploration of Buddhist understanding of consciousness alongside the ideas of cognitive neuroscience. It is a large hefty volume to read but I do see this area as an important one for understanding the mind, body problem, especially subjective experience.

I hadn't read Giddens until I came across the book in a charity shop a few months ago. I found it worth reading and, a little later, I came across Laing's 'The Divided Self' which was along a similar line of thinking.

The idea of the self is often seen as an aspect of psychology and as one of philosophy to some extent. However, the aspects of sociology are also important too, especially the the idea of the social construction of reality. This includes social life, including gender construction, ideas of deviance and the sociology of religion. When I did study sociology the sociology of knowledge went into aspects of epistemology too. Some writers within the tradition of sociology do explore the nature of subjectivity in relation to a sense of otherness, such as GH Mead. Also, Erving Goffman's understanding of the social presentation of self in everyday life do explore the social construction of human identity.