My understanding of the idea of daimon is of a spiritual power, but it is not the same as demon. I read a book on the topic by Brian Ingliss, 'The Unknown Guest'. It represents a guiding force, or even higher self, which directs one's life.

There is also the issue as to what extent 'soul' can be seen as an independent 'entity' or as a source, especially in relation to individual experiences. This is where the tricky question of individual 'mind' comes in, as opposed to 'soul' as the animating principle.

The idea of a distinct 'soul' goes back to ancient thinking, including the notion of a 'daimon' referred to by Plato. It is here that it is seen as independent, as an entity which may survive death. The relation to ego consciousness is important and may be seen as related to the idea of 'self, which on Buddhism.may be seen as illusory. The idea of independent 'soul' gives rise to the idea of individual immortality vs the nature of soul as an underlying source inherent in birth and rebirth of lifeforms and consciousness..

The concept of the 'soul' is one which is believed in by most religions and ancient philosophers, but rejected by many materialistic thinkers. In many ways, the soul could be seen as consciousness itself, including the interface between 'mind' and 'body'.

It was partly Descartes' thought which led to the separation of mind and body. This has been challenged by ideas of embodiment as central to consciousness.

The idea of the soul doesn't in itself require the existence of God, or a deity. However, it could be argued that some approximation towards 'God' or a 'supreme reality could be figured from the idea of a source of consciousness from the nature of soul. This is suggested in Plotinus's idea of the 'One', which is the connective source.

Welcome to the forum,
Jack

The concept of eternity and the idea I'd eternal recurrence are interesting in relation to the question of how will time end? It is a perspective in a number of philosophies, significant notably in Nietzsche's ideas. I understand that he took the idea literally initially. This involved repeated births and deaths, with only small changes. Later, he saw the the concept of eternal recurrence as being symbolic mainly.

The idea of eternity, like infinity, conveys the way in which time and space are beyond human measurements. It is hard to know where anything starts and ends definitively. We don't know what happened before the Big Bang and about past and future universes. There is no reason to suggest that they are impossible. Starting and ending are not absolutes necessarily.

I do realise that you were not trying to be reductive in a minimising or reductive way. The argument which you develop is similar to ideas developed by Michael Frayn in 'The Human Touch', which looks at the significance of human consciousness in the cosmos. It looks at phenomenological aspects of time and space. It also goes on to suggest that there is a linguistic aspect of this, with the human grasp of concepts; including space and time.

In a way, it could be argued that time ends for each individual when life ends. Death involves the question of existence outside of space and time. Its possibility is plausible in a idealist perspective, especially in esoteric spiritual ones.

This is an interesting questionable area, whether time is a concept in the mind, or an independent aspect of existence. Time is about the experience of past, present and future, with 'now' being central as Eckhart Tolle argues. There is also the experience of 'time's arrow'. This is based on observation by human observers, but it is also based on changes in nature, including ageing and decay. These are a phenomenal aspect of the human mind, in relation to change, but it may be a grave mistake to reduce these to the human mind completely.

It is a wide topic, but one of importance. The idea of existential angst is central. I have read Kierkegaard's 'Fear and Trembling', and found it worth reading, but it is probably rather obscure for most present day experiences. In thinking about depression, they frequently involve feeling 'bad' and 'sad', but have become medicalised, so it is worth thinking of the medical model of depression.

There is definitely a physiological aspect to it, especially in relation to neurotransmitters, which is why antidepressant drugs are given. However, a biopsychosocial is useful in considering the way in which experiences in life and social circumstances affect mood.

The understanding of depression also occurred in the context of psychiatry and the development of psychology. Many view psychological therapy as being important, often in conjunction with antidepressants.

Psychoanalytic theory has been important in thinking of depression. This is a vast subject area and one aspect of which Freud may have made a significant contribution is in the inability to moarn. This would include deaths of others, but also, the traumas and 'deaths' of painful experiences. One other area which it may be worth you reading about is Melanie Klein's idea of the depressive position, which involves a sense of guilt. This occurs in the early life experience of perceiving the mother and oneself, but is relevant for all life experiences. The topic of psychoanalytic theory, and its criticism, is so vast.

There is also the cognitive behaviourist approach, which emphasises that it is not experiences in themselves which lead to depression. It is our beliefs about experience which trigger feelings. So, cognitive behaviour therapy involves looking at and questioning beliefs about experiences. In some ways, CBT is a philosophy approach to understanding experience and it has parallels with Stoic philosophy.

The whole philosophy of emotions is also relevant. Also, the philosophy of mental states and moods may draw upon multidisciplinary thinking, including both the sciences and the arts. Some critics of the medical model see it as being a limited view to simply prescribe medication to lift one's mood. However, this is also open to criticism as in 'clinical depression' the severity can result in an inability to function, to eat, wash and the presence of suicidal thoughts.

There is a whole spectrum of experience in thinking about what is depression? The word may be used by individuals to describe varying experiences, including the presence of a 'blue' or 'black' mood. It includes unique experiences although it involves a universal sense of misery and potential for a state of despair. There is also the question of what makes life worth living and what is happiness?

I like the way in which you personify or anthromorphise time, especially as all forms of existence are dependent upon it. Time may be a dimension, or an illusory phenomenon, because it is matter or nature which changes. Yet, without it, nothing in the material sense, could exist.

Of course, time could appear to have ceased to exist but may remain dormant. In that respect, it may be one, if not primary, archetype, of all forms of existence.

Somehow, I missed your post, but it makes an important point about the unknown. What came before the 'big bang' or after any 'end' remains unknown. That is why it is hard to know for certain whether linearity of time is part of larger cycles or cycles as part of a linear plan. I am inclined to the picture of the cyclical but certainty of this may stretch beyond the limits of human epistemology.

Part of the reason why I have not written more in the thread which I created is because I do see the 'end' of time as problematic. It would require stepping outside of the space-time level of existence, which would require going beyond physicality.

One significant aspect is the concept of time's arrow in this. There is the possibility of its reversability; this has been explored by some writers, including the novelist Martin Amis. However, the idea of the reversability of time remains a thought experiment, as does the idea of time ending.

In terms of systems thinking, directionality is important and hierarchies. The only way in which directionality could be seen in metaphysics would be about ideas of the higher and lower, as a an upward directionality. This was seen in many spiritual perspectives, as in ideas of heaven, hell, the higher self and, spiritual hierarchies.

However, taking it from a social science perspective, the one aspect which emerges is the role of authority and power within hierarchies. In particular, ideas of good and evil, as with all ideas, of the powerful elite are enforced through law, policy and the manufacturing of news.

Thinking about hierarchies, enables a useful contrast between ideas of the metaphysics of a divine order and the way in which those in powerful positions have a critical role in acceptance of ideas.

There being two football teams playing seems to be what happens in cultural wars, whether it is over religion or gender issues. As for 'the same rules', that is where it gets complicated because the war of opposites leads to different agendas and starting points for creation of rules, including moral guidelines.

It may be that the question of the war between good and evil, or the picture of a wider scheme of opposites was a complex dialogue in ancient thinking. Jung describes the Greek concept of enantiodromia, in which opposites reverse when the the extreme of one opposite is reached.

The concept of a continuum is in contrast to that of binary opposites. I am not sure that many consider the importance of the interplay between the two perspectives as an important area for philosophy. It may have particular relevance of the concept of gender, where some propose a continuum as opposed to a simple division of male and female as categories.

The essentialist ideas of gender are because predominant and, with regard to good and evil, the dualistic picture can be seen as essentialist. There may be a popularity of dualistic thinking for simplistic thinking and avoiding 'grey' areas of uncertainty, but the problematic 'middle' will always remain. It is about that which doesn't fit into the black and white categories, and even of the problem 'boxes' and labelling in classification. Categories may be limited as 'Yes/No' thinking, as opposed to descriptive analysis in understanding.

The analogy between the death of the universe and the human experience of death is an interesting one. The question is whether: death=nothingness=unconsciousness? The idea of 'nirvana' is important here because it involves 'a burning out', like a candle, but it may also involve some kind of merging with the transcendent, after cycles of existence. But, whether it is 'the ultimate end' is another issue in the context of the greatest cycles of evolutionary twists and turns.

Great poetry, as always. What your writing suggests is that there is inherent order amidst the universe, as opposed to randomness. Also, the idea of the 'void' suggests more than 'nothingness', involving a creative process, or manifestation.

Yes, @Molieres comments were helpful. It may have felt like a chore at times to write responses. I must admit that 13 essays seemed a bit overwhelming. I tried to give feedback on as many as I could, but a few I missed because I got fairly tired, especially as a lot of the essays were long.

What I felt may have 'gone wrong' a little was a lack of 'fun' element, which was present in the short story competitions. I wonder if it was because there was not a competition, or whether the word 'essay' makes the writing seem too serious and reminiscent of school essays.

Also, giving feedback is not easy on any piece of writing is difficult. The line between criticism and appreciation is blurry. Certainly, there was no mere 'rubbishing' of attempts and an attitude of respect. Some may enjoy 'rubbishing' and critical attack of another's point of view and writing. The ideal may be giving some ideas of what may have worked and what didn't from the reader's perspective. It may be harder to review work which is excellent and the essays which I ignored may have been because I felt a little out of my depth in concentration and understanding. But, yes, short reviews may help because it is hard to interpret 'silence', and whether it signifies lack of interest.

It is a good question as to whether someone needs to have experienced another's pain in order to be able to empathize. In mental health care, there was some focus on the employment of people who had experienced mental health problems because they had more lived experience which would enable greater understanding of mental health problems. However, it did also appear that members of staff who had family members with mental health issues also were able to empathise and understand these issues extremely well.

The right balance between others' pain and becoming overwhelmed by it is critical. This does explain burnout in the healthcare profession Also, in everyday life, the term 'compassion fatigue' is a way of describing too much concern for others to the point where it drains one's energies.

The issue of 'too many people', is one problem which I see with the commandment of 'love your neighbour as yourself', as there are so many neighbours. How does one prioritize, especially in the global context. It may be simpler in small scale communities. The problem is that in densely urban populations, a lack of community exists. It is in this context that people may become treated as numbers, or even as 'objects'. Lack of 'community' can result in so many people becoming isolated and neglected.

Thank you for your feedback and I am glad that you appreciated the way it was a review. I am more of a reader than someone who likes to voice opinions. I do spend a lot of time immersed in my own subjective thinking but like to focus on the grounding of reading ideas as a disciplined approach, as a way of not getting lost in my 'inner' tangents. I find this to be such a danger, especially when I working night shifts and used to dwell on philosophy questions. The right balance between inner searching and dialogue with others' ideas can be a more of grounding experience, I find.

Autobiography is an extremely interesting form of writing in relation to the spectrum between non fiction and fiction. That is because it is all about framing.

One of my own important experiences was the task given of writing a 'spiritual autobiography' in Religious Studies, during sixth form. I had never really stood back and reflected on my own inner experience in writing before. It felt like a significant step in the direction of philosophy.

One writer who wrote philosophy autobiography was Bryan Magee. Reading his writing made ideas come to life with the way he spoke of his own engagement with ideas.

Of course, a lot of fiction has an autobiographical slant. It allows for 'playing'with one's life experiences in a creative way. This may be partly to protect the people in one's life and also about being able to keep some distance and 'secrecy' about oneself. In the philosophy of authenticity, there is a lot of emphasis on self disclosure. But, I wonder how far this needs to go. Who benefits when we disclose so much, especially painful experiences? Fiction allows for the careful interplay between the basic 'facts' of experience and how one would like it to be.

Fiction involves developing personal mythology, and so does autobiographical writing, in what is selected to share and what remains unsaid.

I am also wondering where autobiography lies in the scope of narratives and identity. How much is about 'objective fact', and subjective meaning? It may seem too subjective, but, on the other hand, subjective/ objective understanding is complicated. I wonder about the balance between science/logos and the imagination.

How much which is taking place historically, is being seen concretely, as opposed to symbolic dramas? To what extent is politics and its historical dramas an expression of cosmic or human dramas in embodied action?

The nature of images and the symbolic are likely to be important in human understanding. So much thinking may become so concrete, as if models, including the mathematical and scientific ones, are seen as all encompassing. This may show a bias and diminishing of human reason, especially in favour of science and arts based understanding, which may be complementary to one another.

In speaking of constructed and deconstructed I am influenced by sociology, especially postmodernism.

In trying to reformulate the question I could ask, Is story and metaphor central to all understanding of 'truth'?

History is constructed from perspectives. Of course, it is brought together by a certain collective experience, but it is understood so differently by individuals. Epistemology has cultural and individual angles. Even one person's viewpoint alters, affected by state of mind and external influence.

This is shocking news! Vera was such an important writer on the forum. She made significant contributions to so many discussions, including the recent essay activity in the past couple of weeks.

I am aware of various members struggling with health problems. Also, I have been hospitalized with pneumonia twice in the last couple of months. We are all mortal beings as we pursue the philosophical questions. Everything in life is impermanent and all exploration occurs within the uncertainties of an unknown future.

Vera will be missed so much on the forum for her unique contributions, and, thank you for informing everyone through starting this thread.

It is complicated because facts are raw material and may be constructed or deconstructed by individuals depending on motivation and how ideas are presented.

[reply="180 Proof;996108"
In other words, ancient people may have thought in terms of story. But, what about the twentieth first century, and how relevant is narrative history and understanding?

9kay, but that is about ancient thinking. What about fiction and 'story' in contemporary imagination and thought?

Demorhysing is important, but even science may be based on mythology or story. Does it come down to removing narrative explanations? What are we.left with, models and, on what basis?

Also, in thinking about life experiences what is left if narratives, and symbolic aspects are cast aside. Surely, this would amount to meaninglessness. Stories, even if fabricated, are central to human understanding. They may have subjective rather than objective rendering, but they are central to human experience

The debate on theory of mind offers an interesting one for thinking about consciousness and personal identity. Rocks don't have a sense of identity but humans do. However, personal identity is constructed socially and the idea of 'otherness', or 'difference' too.

The autistic perspective may be about wiring and seeing from 'the outsider's perspective. It is not an academic psychology text but maybe useful, and I am referring to Colin Wilson's, 'The Outsider'. It looks at a number of creative artists and thinkers, including Camus, Nietzsche and Van Gogh. Wilson was interested in states of peak consciousness and this may involve seeing outside conventional frames of reference.

Camus' 'The Outsider' is significant here because in the short aftermath of his mother's death he has sex and goes on to kill someone. This may be important in the understanding of sociopaths, or Nietzsche's idea of 'Beyond Good and Evil'. Lack of empathy, especially effective empathy may involve emotional numbing. But, it would be a great mistake to make over generalisations about autistic people as each person is unique.

It is likely that many of the creative artists and scientists would have been seen as on the autistic spectrum. I have come across suggestions that Immanuel Kant would have been, and his entire philosophy of the categorical imperative could be seen as a theoretical foundation for empathy based ethics.

I do hope that you get well and have wondered about your lack of presence on the site recently. I am thinking that your issues may come down to diabetes, which is so prevalent.

So much of philosophy may be about abstract and nitty gritty ideas and may lose sight of existential suffering and the questions which it poses about the human condition. We are not simply 'minds' but embodied beings, and any understanding of empathy or sympathy needs to embrace this, in understanding the human condition.

Yes, the communication issues involved in conveying sympathy or empathy are critical. For example, if I relate an experience of great suffering and receive what feels like a shallow response of someone who is not suffering it may feel like a 'condescending', or 'chocolate box' response. The interpretation of the person receiving the response is also significant, and it may differ from the intention of the sender.

I wonder about the present time, when so many appear to be suffering, although that is an interpretation of news, may open or shut down empathy and compassion. It may lead to Hobbes' conclusion of life being 'brutish, nasty and short' or about egoism and the need for survival. Individuals may focus on self interest, in a harsh world, or may consider altruism, which goes beyond the idea of action for direct personal advantages and gains.

Yes, the imagination of someone to feel another's pain may be limited and that is why the issue of autism is relevant. It is hard to know to what extent the ability to empathise is about biological wiring or experiences, including trauma. Even reasoning about others' suffering and ethical concerns may be affected by these factors. Traumas may do so much damage.

Yes, both too little or too much empathy can be problematic. Too little can lead to indifference to the suffering of others and too much can lead to extreme sensitivity. It is indeed possible to become afflicted by the pain of others through sensitivity. This may be a cause of mental suffering, including effective disorders and forms of addictions, including drug and alcohol.

It partly comes down to the problem of being separate individuals, but interconnected.

Yes, the psychiatric understanding of autism and empathy is probably slightly different from the issue of sympathy/empathy. The reason why I mentioned it is that the issues of autism are becoming so common. There are so many people who are self diagnosing themselves as autism and, lack of empathy may be part of this criteria.

It also overlaps with the idea of 'emotional intelligence'. However, it would be too crude a stereotype to think of autistic people as lacking social concern. Greta Thundberg is an example of someone who cares for social issues of justice. Sometimes, gushy emotionality can be mistaken for empathy, as in 'crocodile tears'.

I am uncertain about where I stand on the issue of empathy/sympathy being about semantics. That is because so much does come down to usage and context of words. However, so much of the conceptual understandings within philosophy do as well, and part of in the debate about empathy vs sympathy becomes apparent in its translation to ethical responsibility.

Also, the issue of empathy has become an important area in psychiatry, in relation to autism. Lack of empathy has become medicalised. However, even in that context there may be blurring of semantics. Some assumptions and assessments may be about the ability, or lack of ability for 'feelings'. This may involve value judgements on the part of those assessing. Nevertheless, on a more analytic level, the research on autism looks at theory of mind, involving the ability to be able to imagine another's perspective, which is the basis of the concept of empathy.

I am responding to your post first because I can relate to it most, as I was in hospital twice and experiencing cries of distress from other patients. The question does involve the extent to which one's own pain makes us more sensitive or blinds us from that of others' suffering. It may vary so much. I am also thinking that your situation sounds 'worse' than mine if you had a limb amputated, which your post seems to suggest. (I was in hospital for chest infections, although I need further tests for underlying systemic health problems).

But, going back to the issue of how one's pain affects the response to the pain of others, comes down to mood and attitude. It is possible to become shut in a prison of personal suffering or to become more awake to that of others. One thing which I have reflected upon is that when my mother had chest infections, I may been less empathetic as at that time I was not aware of how awful the experience is. This may apply in so many issues. For example, those who have been homeless or in poverty may be more compassionate toward those in similar circumstances, but not always.

Your point about empathy being more passive whereas sympathy being more active is important. I used to think that empathy was 'better' than sympathy because it involved authenticity. However, it does seem that sympathy involves a more active need to help in many ways. Empathy is the experience of feeling alongside another, involving the passions. I guess that both empathy and sympathy can be hollow responses if not involving some kind of action. That is where compassion-based ethics steps in.

As far as your questioning of the current vs historical nature of empathy, it is likely that human nature does not change in itself. It is possible to see the suffering of past times and in far distant lands as 'barbaric'. The closer it comes to daily experience may make such a difference. Presently, the news shows so much trouble in the world (2025 seems far worse than the time of the pandemic from my point of view). The difference between passive emotion and action involves the extent to which the emotion is matched with reasoned responses and a pragmatic approach. That is if one does not become overwhelmed, especially by the intensity of the emotions, and 'the fight and flight' aspects of human nature and survival.

In the meantime, I wish you a speedy recovery from whatever health problems have led you to a rehabilitation unit.

Best wishes,
Jack

Thank you for your feedback, including the issue of how physics may be regarded. It was once seen as the foundation for science. This has become a shaky area and the whole issue of experimental verification arises in connection with this. Partiality and impartiality is linked to this, especially as scientific experiments can only test hypotheses or descriptive inferences. So much comes down to interpretation and physics may give what is considered to be metaphysical flights of fantasy.

Thanks for your feedback, and, at least you know part of the background. The concepts of 'insides' vs 'outsides' was probably not considered fully enough. It is about positions, or perspectives. As far as lopsided thinking, it is a good question how this relates to prejudices. Each person comes from a background of experience, of cultural epistemological influences. The challenge may be to expand this as far as possible.

If anything, this essay is one of processing a lot reading which I have done, culminating in the issue of New Scientist on the nature of reality. It may be more one which involves my own thinking, and it would need a lot more careful exposition to make it helpful reading for others.

The references to needing more oxygen were based on my own low oxygen levels, which did give rise to hallucinations...I did wonder about the significance of needing breathing space, especially given the intensity of thinking in philosophy...

Thank you, I am still not great and have to have some further physical investigations.

One thing which may interest you, as I know it is one of your areas of interest, is that when my oxygen levels were very low I had some experiences resembling NDEs. I saw underworlds, which seemed to be like art in the imagery of the Tibetan and Egyptian books of the dead. I even had some auditory hallucinations, such as the 'voice' of a spirit guide. I nearly wrote my essay about this but it felt too intense a task to undertake.

The reason why I put Vera for Dante is because I see her as rather literature based.

I also spent time trying to work out which one was yours. I nearly didn't enter because I have been in hospital twice but did so to try to take my mind off the physical health problems. I think that I may have got discharged a bit too soon because staff thought that I was more well than I was as I spent so much time reading philosophy while on oxygen.