I am inclined to wonder how much words and music are interrelated on some level, especially in poetry. Many of those who wrote have combined the two, such as Leonard Cohen. Language and singing are both important of human utterances and what is heard. Even reading words aloud may be such a different experience of the sound of the human voice.

Sound may have such power at a subliminal level. I have even come across the idea that sound can kill. Hopefully, it does not go that far, but I stopped going to metal and punk live events because I did begin to think that it was affecting my hearing, and I think that I do have some difficulty hearing higher pitch sounds.

I read more about Schopenhauer's ideas recently and I am trying to get hold of his writings. Personally, I do link Nietzsche's ideas with those of Jim Morrison and the Doors, but I am not sure that the logic of this is entirely correct. It may be my own connection, although I know that Jim was inspired by Nietzsche and this is so evident in Jim's lyrics, especially in 'An American Prayer' poetry/ album.

Yes, it is a big topic and I am sure that you appreciate this as I know that you find music to be such an important aspect of life. I just know that music has such profound importance on my mental state, so when I came across the book I thought it was worth raising as an aspect of philosophy and it will be interesting to see what it raises here. I think that some people may consider music as an aspect of qualia, but I think that it is also an important aspect of phenomenology.

The Eastern and Western approaches are interesting and may have implications for how music is understood or appreciated. But, even in our culture I wonder about binaries and divisions. It may be that music is understood and appreciated differently from the right and left hemispheres, and within cultures this is balanced so differently and it may impact on music appreciation.

Actually, I have only ever smoked when 'dope ' has been part of the mixture rather than just tobacco. But, coming back to music, I do wonder about wider aspects of inter subjectivity, such as I felt the music of Jim Morrison to be bound up with the philosophy of Nietzsche.

I guess that I am really asking about the nature of metaphysical realities which may be underlying our appreciation of music. That is probably the aspect of this which makes it an aspect of philosophy, especially the relationship between subjective experience of sound and music, or anything which may be objective beyond this.

In many ways, I agree that so much of thinking is built around metaphors and the whole symbolic levels of reality. However, when I was reading the book I referred to , I was wondering about the possibility of objective realities lying behind the arts and music. This may be about archetypal aspects of existence or sounds, but I am left wondering about the whole spectrum of objectivity and subjectivity, and it does seem that the physical world is such an important aspect of this , including shared meanings and experiences of sound and music.

I just found it to be an interesting story really. I am not saying that much should be read into it. If anything, it may be about conflicts between the unconscious and conscious. For example, I once had a friend who was very political and anti religion. He was sleeping on the floor while I was sitting on bed, writing a college essay. While he was asleep, he said, 'Jesus was a revolutionary. I wondered where that came from and when I told him what he said he was startled.

Of course, I am getting a bit psychoanalytical. But, that is a different language to logical positivism. Actually, I think that, 'Language, Truth and Logic', by Ayer is an extremely helpful book and I do think that most of metaphysics is only speculation ultimately.

I read a recent article in 'Philosophy Now' magazine which said how Ayer had a near death experience in hospital towards the end of life. He saw a 'divine being' and, afterwards, he said that he would have to revise his position on metaphysics. I found the story quite interesting, but, of course, Ayer didn't get the opportunity to write further books.

I sometimes have black hole days and I wonder if psychological black holes are in any way parallel to physical ones. But, in the psychological ones I do find that there is 'something' which seems to come out of them on a positive level. It is as if going into shamanic underworld brings forth some hidden treasures, even though there may be moments which may feel like 'nothingness' along the way.

I am glad that I don't have to do any exams. They really could go either way. I particularly hated multiple choices and preferred essays because it allowed for more fuzzy logic.

That's an interesting point you make about pain and suffering. However, I am not sure to what extent one may become illogical as a result of pain or lack of pleasure. It may go either way with pain having a detrimental effect on thinking or it could go in the opposite direction with it enabling a person to get to a newer and higher level that logic as a person searches in greater depth. This may apply more to emotional pain because it can bring about a challenge to the ego and lead a person to connect more with others' suffering through empathy. What do you think?

I just wish to add that play may be an essential aspect of the creative process, because it involves both imagination and experimentation. It may be too harsh when people lose the ability to play in preference for work and grim aspects of reality. A certain amount of playfulness may be important for human meaning and, even fun, rather than misery and play may be important in the ability to see humour and, prevent seeing life in it most tragic form. Play may be important in philosophy in order to put ideas together creatively and to bring forth ideas in new ways.

Play may be seen as frivolous or as serious because it embraces fantasy. Winnicott spoke of the teddy bear as being an important transitional object in negotiationing symbolic meanings. Having grown up with a mother who loved teddy bears, I understand their significance and my own bear, Russell, who wears dungarees still remains on my bed. I love toys as transitional objects, because they take us into the realm of fantasy. I can also remember as a child pretending to be many different rock stars. As adults, it may be that we cast aside our toys and our fantasies and, perhaps, this is a loss and play can be an important factor throughout life, and not simply in childhood. Drama and the arts may incorporate some aspects of play.

No, I haven't left for good and just finished doing house clearance yesterday...It was such a big job and I had to take about 100 teddy bears to charity shops, taking them on buses. So, I am exhausted and finding it hard to concentrate on philosophy but I hope to be able to do so in the next few days.

Perhaps morality needs a combination of logic and emotion in order for it to be balanced. Logic or rationality is needed to assess the best course of action, juggling possible effects. However, there may also be need for emotional aspects as a motivating factor to aid an approach which involves empathy or compassion too.

I love the song 'Levels' by Avicci, as for me it may involve stepping into further dimensions. Music may be a way of tapping such dimensions and who knows if they are imaginary. Some may have spoken of astral projection, but this is probably not the common language of philosophy. Multiverses and higher dimensions: the question may be to what extent do these exist in the human imagination or as dimensions independently of human consciousness?

I found confession terrible because the things which I felt were my sins were just too complicated to explain in a little confession box, so I was extremely vague. I used to get so nervous before going. I even got nervous going to communion, in case I dropped the communion wafer. My mum and I also had a longstanding joke that wouldn't it be awful to drop the collection plate. I don't know how you ever coped being an altar boy, but you are probably less nervous.

I am not sure what you are questioning exactly. Is it the idea that religious perspectives speak of 'hidden' reality? What I mean is that in many religious viewpoints there is thought to be some kind of 'unseen' dimension, underlying everything. In particular, it could be argued that in many current philosophical discussions about consciousness there is the idea that unconsciousness is an absolute. In contrast, within many religious perspectives this is not the way in which it is seen. There is believed to be some inherent purpose behind manifest reality, such as a divine presence and even the unconsciousness present at death is not seen as complete nothingness.

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing.

I was just reading your post from yesterday and I do agree that religious systems often claim authority on the basis of 'hidden truths'. That does make it different from the general approach of philosophy, which is usually about the tools of rationality to enable rational thinking, by mystifying in the form of 'the hidden'.

I still don't see why you seem to support the idea of 'cognitive hygiene'. What about the concept impresses you so greatly? You emphasise the importance of eliminating negative thinking, and I do believe in a positive mindset. Nevertheless, most therapy approaches do not see 'emotional health' as being merely a matter of eliminating the negative, and are a bit deeper. For example, in the cognitive-behavioral model, the emphasis is upon understanding assumptions which impact on individual emotions. This involves challenging faulty judgements and errors in thinking, rather than simply the 'negative'.

This may involve looking at certain negative assumptions, but more with a view to looking at the erroneous rather than simply the negative. For example, if someone was in a relationship this may involve questioning fears that the partner may leave. It would not be necessarily saying that the relationship will not end because it might do. To simply try to eliminate negative possibilities alone doesn't always work because in some ways people can't just try to rule out negative things happening. So, what I am arguing is that interventions may need to go deeper than simply trying to eliminate negativity alone.

Well, I know that you call me 'truthseeker' and, to some extent that is true, but, at other times, I do query such a quest. To a large extent, I do approach philosophy as if it were a 'religion', but I know that it is not. So, I just would like to read as much philosophy and discuss it in the best possible way, and perhaps this may be the most approximate way of finding 'truth'. Looking at issues from many angles may be important rather than being locked into one fixed position because 'truth' may be about seeing beyond personal biases as far as possible.

Is it all a 'wild goose chase'? Is it all a mixture of 'bad philosophy', and running round in circles literally, or on various threads about 'truth', the existence of God etc? There are many threads tackling the same issues, and they keep going on, which shows how tricky some of the areas of thought are.

I can see your point about magical fantasy. Reza Azlan quotes Feuerbach. Part of the problem which I see is that it possible to back up almost all arguments for and against religious viewpoints. I don't know if the problem is subjectivity itself or how difficult it is to frame the questions of religion. I am not sure how far philosophy goes, or whether other disciplines such as anthropology are more helpful. Obviously, each individual comes to some kind of viewpoint, but I presume that within.philosopy, this may encompass a certain amount of rigour, although conclusions may be variable, with no absolutes.

I would definitely agree that religion is not necessarily to achieve 'transcendence'. But, I am still left wondering what is needed, because so much of life is based on ideas of the mundane? What leads people to go beyond the basics, is it questioning, suffering, or some other factors?

I have just been reading, 'God: A Human History of God', by Reza Aslan (2O17), and this may offer an interesting perspective in regard to the question of ultimate 'truths'. However, this author is far from seeing religious ideas and images of God as referring necessarily to a reality beyond human concepts, but as an aspect of thinking, arguing,
' What remains undeniable is that religious belief is so widespread that it must be considered an elemental part of the human experience. '
I wonder how this idea of religious 'truth' stands and how philosophy may aid in bringing forth discussion in the most helpful and critical ways.

There is no easy solutions for forms of suffering, especially emotional pain. It is not like sewing up a bleeding arm. Apart from medications to relieve symptoms like anxiety and depression, there are so many contrasting forms of therapy, especially the psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral approach. From what I have seen some people find different approaches more helpful, and the relationship with the therapist may be a key factor.

Yes, I was horrified at the notion of cognitive hygiene, even when links were given. It seems like cleaning out the negative as if it is 'dirt'. I hope that is not the way forward for management in the mental health professions.

Movements like postmodernism are extremely interesting because they are able to sidestep the big divisions between theism and atheism, as well as between idealism and materialism. That may be where the social sciences come in, by focusing upon the aspects of human nature and cultural constructs. In a way, logical positivism may have paved the way for this to happen by suggesting that metaphysics is pure speculation. In the twentieth first century, there may be a juggling between focusing on social meanings and ideas which can be measured empirically, alongside people going back to the big questions which are both central to religious and philosophical quests.

You say that the division between religion and philosophy is not related to science and are 'the same roots, different trees'. This may be true in the original differences, but, surely, the role of science must have some bearing in the twentieth and twentieth first century, because scientists have played such a role in explanations for so many aspects of life, and almost made the ideas of religion seem untenable. While philosophy still draws upon the ideas of many previous ages, it makes it easier to divide philosophy from its relationship with religion.

I don't see how that the idea of possibility in itself makes something 'real', because all it suggests is some remote chance rather than something definite. I am not sure how the concept of such a logical possibility would be of any use to anyone because those who adopt a belief in God are mainly interested in a being who they can relate to on a personal level rather than as a remote possibility.

Your post is interesting, because I was wondering if what I wrote was too much of a generalization about the split between religion and philosophy historically. I guess that there has always been a wide spectrum of viewpoints, before the rise and fall of Christendom, even though science has altered perspectives radically. The tension between reason and faith has been a strong one and even now many feel that it is 'sinful' to even question some of the ideas within religious systems, which may be why many wish to cling on to ideas like the creation story within Genesis. There is a lot of perpetuation of fear, and the idea of 'hell and damnation' is spoken of less, but it still remains as an undercurrent, to make people believe that faith as opposed to reason is supreme.

It is probably more about different choice of words, and the term ' emotional wellbeing' is usually used rather than 'emotional health'. Generally 'mental health' is more of a medical label, encompassing a wide range of difficulties, including but not restricted to mood disorders. But, the concept of mental health is used as a commonplace term generally to describe people's experiences of a wide range of difficulties or lack of difficulties. 'Emotional wellbeing' as the way in which can live in a way with a relative lack of distress, and, with some reference to ways to enable this, such as through talking about worries and stress and techniques for relaxation.

Where did you come across the idea of 'cognitive hygiene', as it is a term which I have never come across before, although I have heard of the term 'mental hygiene', which I believe is seen as a rather dated term as it has implications of 'cleanlliness', which raises questions. But, there is a big emphasis within the field of mental health care upon cognitive techniques to help people with their experience of difficulties, especially the cognitive behavioral approach to therapy. This is an approach, which includes looking at 'cognitions' or thoughts and how they impact on a person's wellbeing.

One important thing to bear in mind is that all these terms, are to some extent, ways of categorizing people's experiences arising within psychiatry. In the past, there was the tradition of antipsychiatry which looked at labels and diagnosis critically, viewing them as ways of defining what is seen as 'abnormal' and the political aspects of this. However, antipsychiatry is less popular because it could be seen as dismissive of the reality of the suffering of individuals' difficulties. Nevertheless, labels can be used as a way of stigmatising people, so it is important that they are not used in such a way, but in a way which enables people to refer to their experiences in a way which can enable them to access support and care.

That is unusual, and I find it interesting, although horrible, because so far no particular idea or use of ideas has ever made me vomit literally. So, I am interested to know why it affected you so much. Was it because you think that it is a complete misuse of the basis of his own philosophy and intention?

You may be querying the basis of the way in which Christians are using Wittgenstein's ideas but I find your claim that it makes you 'ill' as a bit extreme, even though I realise that you may be speaking metaphorically.

I have not read Wittgenstein in any way as much as I wish, and I do hope to read his writings more fully at some point. However, from some of what I have read I have wondered if there is some mysticism in his thinking insofar as queries the limits of language. So, what you have just written about Christians incorporating his ideas does seem to be one be one possible way of using his ideas, although it is possible that his ideas and statements have so much ambiguity that they could be interpreted to fit religious views or atheism.

In speaking of combined origins of religion and philosophy, rather than simply common origins, the point which I am trying to make is that many thinkers blended the two, to the point where they would have probably been rather surprised by how they are different disciplines now. I am partly referring to ancient religions, such as the Egyptian and Hindu ones. However, the whole development of Christendom involved a combination of religious ideas and philosophy. In particular, Augustine and Aquinas came from a religious stance, but incorporated the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, almost trying to merge the two seamlessly.

It is likely that it may only be in the last couple of centuries that philosophy and religion are seen apart from one another, following the ideas of science and other movements, such as existentialism. One point which may be important is that it may only be that in recent times that philosophers have seen life from the standpoint of scientific materialism. Of course, many thinkers of the past did not adhere to the theism of the Judaism and Christianity, or of Islam, but the cosmos of the previous worldviews, including Eastern philosophers, the ancient Greeks and the pagans was more of a 'religious' one , insofar as there was an underlying belief in some kind of 'supernatural' order.

When speaking about the harshest aspects of existence, I am referring to the existential aspects of existence which cause so much suffering, ranging from fear of one's own death, experiencing the death of significant others, poverty, and seeing atrocities in the world, including people treating others in an inhumane way, and all forms of suffering.

It is true that there is religious thinking and, on the other hand, the ideas within wisdom and spiritual thinking. It is possible to have spiritual ideas without any religious ones. The term 'spiritual' conjures up notions of religious or metaphysical entities, but in its most fundamental root, spiritual can be seen as relating to the inner life of a human being. I think that it is interesting that Eastern religions perspectives seem able to explore the inner life with less emphasis on 'God', especially in Buddhism.

It is true that science and logic cannot disprove God, but, on the other hand, science and logic cannot prove God's existence. There was Anselm's ontological argument, but it probably falls short of its' claim because all it really shows is that God is an idea in the human mind. If it logic was followed, it would be possible to argue that all possibilities conceived by humans exist independently of the human mind.