I read the article on Sorokin, thanks. I had not come across him but it does seem that he has some useful ideas. The one which I found particular interesting was the idea of the supraconscious. Perhaps the idea of a higher self is helpful for us for guiding us. Certainly, at times I find that it is as if I can tune into a higher state of mind than ego consciousness. Generally, I think that many people may not be aware of this faculty and it probably gets lost if we focus on television and other social media too much. It may be that this dimension of seeing is the one which enables liberty being seen as just about fulfilling one's own personal wishes.

The activity which I find so liberating is creative writing groups and workshops. Of course, finding the right one is important. I enjoy writing fiction because it gives more scope for juggling bits of self disclosure and creating characters. I do also enjoy art activities, but don't want to go to ones which are still life, and prefer it if I can work on my own ideas. Once, when I was at university I discovered a philosophy group run at someone's home.

It is good that more people are joining in a thread and it was really just a slow starter, but that is probably better than one that is very active but fizzled out within a couple of days.

You speak of the fall of civilisation of Rome, but there may have been civilisations and cycles long before this. I know that continents such as Atlantis and Mu are questionable beyond mythical truths, but they do point to the possibility of many highly sophisticated civilisations before those of which most people are aware.

Even thinking of the history we do know about, it would seem that the Egyptians had extremely sophisticated technology. No one has really come to a clear conclusion about how the pyramids were developed.

We also don't know what technology is yet to come to our civilisation or any future one. If people a hundred years ago had been told about the internet, Zoom and Wifi, they may have said that is not possible. Even with energy resources there might be untapped energy resources. For all we know, energy resources may be enabled through use of resources in out of space or perhaps petroleum will be created in a laboratory. I know that this might sound bizarre but there are things already taking place, such as nanotechnology.

That is not to say that I don't think that we are in a deep mess. I do believe that we may be at the end of this civilisation or even all civilisations on earth, but we really don't know. I like to keep an open mind in imagining all possibilities. What is science fiction today may become a future reality.

I am not sure that happiness is just about achieving goals and desires because many people achieve these and are not happy. Perhaps the Buddha was right in seeing craving as a source of suffering.

However, we are likely to become depressed when we are unable to fulfill any of our dreams and I don't think it is that simple to try to eradicate desires and cravings, even with meditation. In many instances it may be conscious experience of unhappiness which brings us to some awareness of what will bring us happiness. Of course, it may be that when we have fulfilled these dreams that we are not as happy as we thought that we would be, but a certain experiences of satisfaction may be attained, which is far better than the misery and despair of being unable to fulfill satisfaction at all.

You asked what it means for humanity to consciously die. Personally, I would view this as a means of people being lacking in self awareness. I am not sure that we are awake enough, in the sense of being able to always see beyond the conditioning we have experienced and how we are taught to see in the way institutions try to program us. I would say that it is about reflective consciousness and, often, this is not triggered unless people suffer to the point where they need to question and think.

I am not sure that it is just about formal philosophy, because even that can be about reading and regurgitating the ideas of others. Also, some of the most philosophical approaches to life may not be come under the strict definition of philosophy but within other disciplines, as free thinking.

Thanks for your comments. I have been reflecting on the nature of liberty today and I that even though the idea is related to aspects of life in the world, it is to some extent, a whole matter of mindset or perspective.

Yesterday, the whole way I was feeling lacking in liberty was partly a fault of my perception. From the moment I got up I was feeling oppressed by obstacles, including cafes all being shut and the rain. Of course, these were real, but it is all how we view them really. We create our own reality by our own perception. Thinking back to when I had a job, that often struck me as a form of loss of liberty because I was obliged to get up and go to it, even if I didn't feel up to. At least, at the moment I have the liberty to spend time reading and writing in my room. So, what I am saying is that the more we see loss of liberty we create our own oppression.

In relation to Nikolas's point about liberty in relation to loss of grace, I would say that belief in liberty for ourselves does become narrow, if we do see it as something just to achieve for oneself, rather than as for others to. Whether or not we believe in God, in the literal sense, of conventional religious belief, if we seek maximum liberty for ourselves, without consideration for our role of living harmoniously with others and the cosmos, we are developing a view of liberty which is primarily about gratification of the self. I would suggest that any ethics of liberty needs to take a wider view, involving the happiness of others. However, I think that it is best if this belief is discovered for oneself ideally.

Thanks, I will just hope that things will improve in England because at the moment it is all so demoralising and soul destroying. Obviously, all the people on the forum are in different parts of the world, so are in very differing sets of circumstances.

Thanks for your link article. I will read it tomorrow as it is after 1am. I do think that we are in need of culture change to prevent cultural collapse.

Probably our personal circumstances do influence the way we see it all. I am sure that I wrote the thread today because I moved into a shared house with a group of strangers. I am forced to spend time in shared spaces with these people and this seems indefinite because I believe lockdown of indoor venues is likely to last into spring or summer. I go out but can't even find anywhere to read a book because it is bad weather.

So, I feel imprisoned in a room and lacking any liberty. However, while out today I did see many people without any place to live, stuck outside in the rain, so I am grateful to have somewhere to live, but I am very uncertain about the way civilisation is going. I realise that we are living in a difficult time, with the pandemic, but I do believe that human beings are being seen as of lesser worth gradually. I think that it is probably due to overpopulation and we are becoming mere numbers, and of little importance individually.

I quite like your idea of 'Liberty is yourself stuck with yourself'. Having opened this complex debate, with no easy answers, I feel a bit consoled with that point, at least.

I have read the article link and can see problems arising with the idea of liberty in the secular times, but came away from reading without any clear idea of a way forward. Do you see one?

I am in England, not America, but I presume that the same principles apply. How do you believe that the idea of 'might makes right' as a replacement for the idea of liberty will translate in practice?

I am not wishing to stress anyone's rights over and above others. I am just one person feeling depressed and demoralised when I see that people's rights are being eroded. I realise the problems of the time of the pandemic and my biggest concern is just to be able to go out and buy a cup of coffee in a cafe, to be able to read a book indoors.

I can see that current rules are related to the pandemic, but I do see them as paving the way towards a whole way in which a climate of restrictions is an accepted norm, hastening in the ways of totalitarian thinking and regimes.I am not wishing to view this way of thinking as the overriding perspective, but I am not seeing many alternatives in critical thinking at this moment.

You speak of liberty being under threat, and I do believe that is true and that in its many guises totalitarian regimes are being ushered in gradually through ideas of the moral good. I would argue that the whole pandemic is part, but could become a whole basis and paradigm of thinking through policies aimed at high ideals of health and social improvements.

I am certainly not opposed to the ways of going beyond the problems of our times, including the real concerns of the pandemic.But what I am worried about is the way in which this whole area allows for ideas and ideologies which are not in line with the view of seeing the human being as as of importance. I am worried that we are on the cusp of seeing a whole panorama of human freedoms being dismissed and curtailed, under the guise of the common good, and that this is part of a philosophy of control of the masses. I hope that humanity can go beyond the idea of control, to a way of seeing freedom for individuals, in contributing to future of humanity in a less restrictive vision. Otherwise, I daren't imagine what future we are facing.

I began this thread from the starting point of how compassion has taken a backseat in Western materialistic society, and in Western philosophy. I do believe that different writers have used the term differently. During this thread the whole tension in the use of the term has been whether it is about empathy or a focus for acting and I would say that it is a mixture of both. It could be described as a way of valuing and was more predominant in traditional societies and it was more central within Eastern thinking, and it may have been driven out of focus in Western thought amidst a focus upon rationality and technological progress.

What do you think about the idea of the lost continent of Atlantis? I know that Plato mentioned Atlantis. The whole idea of lost civilisations is interesting. We know about the fall of Rome, and about the history of Egypt, but the idea of civilisations before that is interesting too.

But, if it happened, and we became a part of the 'mythic' past it is interesting to know how they would view our world, our history from the perspective of the past. What would be interesting is if some computer hardware and software surfaced and they had access to some information on the internet and tried to reconstruct history of fallen civilisation, from a distant point in the future.

Funnily enough, I have just been having a discussion of this theme with Athena and Ken, in the impersonalised thread. We have been talking about the way this forum enables discussion across countries, as well as the need for creative, intellectual communities.

I have told Athena about how I have found that following University, I have found one of the best spaces has been community education classes. In the last couple of years in London, I have found that more arts and intellectual workshops and groups are being set up in libraries. Let us hope that after people don't have to stick to social distancing rules, all this time of not being able to meet with other people, that people will realise the need for meaningful connections and that this will herald some innovations of discussion groups and creative projects in communities.

I would say that the closest I have ever found to a creative arts based community was at university, especially Goldsmiths College, in New Cross. I know that Julian Clary, Brian Molko from the band Placebo, as well as Graham Coxon from Blur, studied there. College societies were often like little creative niches. After leaving college, I have found joining community education classes has been one way of finding like minded people.

But it is hard to find creative, intellectual communities. It probably varies in different countries and different parts within countries. In London, there are some areas which are more arty, especially Greenwich and Camden Town. I have spent a lot of my spare time in these areas but they are so busy that most of the time I never really got to know anyone on my travels, apart from regular interaction with staff in record and bookshops.

In some ways, I think that it is easier to find little arts based communities within towns and villages. I don't spend that much time in my home town of Bedford, but have found that in some ways it is easier to form more meaningful connections. I have often got to know some very interesting people in libraries. Probably my ideal is libraries with cafes because it allows for people sitting conversing about the books they are reading rather than sitting quietly at desks or using computers.

But, we will have to see what emerges when lockdowns ease eventually. Some things may not reopen and there will be changes. However, it could be that after all this time of social distancing, when people do get the chance to reconnect, that many will be looking for more meaningful and perhaps some creative, intellectual places will emerge for us in our various locations. Let us hope that happens.

I am not sure that I can answer this very well, but I am going to have a go, because no one else has and it might at least get the ball rolling.

The idea of the particle could be seen as cells. Perhaps we develop and multiply as cells, with consciousness emerging in this way. The spark of consciousness is connected to others' cells of consciousness, in a vast amoeba of expanding conscious awareness.

I am afraid that I don't think that I have probably managed to capture a picture of panpsychism which you may have been wishing for. The problem I see is that panpsychism is usually about finding consciousness in the inanimate and even if we try to see ourselves as particles, it is hard to view the human being without any inherent consciousness in the first place. It would almost seem like antipanpsychism.

It was quite interesting to read some of the thoughts of the Dalai Lama on the subject because I haven't read any of his writings, and I don't know why really.

What you said about Schopenhauer and sinners led me to think of how I learned of compassion initially in the context of being brought up as a Catholic. It involved going to regular confessions of sins. It used to be quite scary going into a little confession box and speaking to a priest, who was hidden behind a curtain. I was introduced to this practice at age 7 and even though it used to make me feel anxious, there was always the relief of having been absolved of sin, or forgiven.

The whole emphasis in Catholicism was upon being forgiven and of forgiving others, and I think this did involve a whole sense of compassion towards others, a sense of non-judgementalness towards fellow sinners. Of course, I am not saying that all the Catholics I met were non judgemental. Far from it, and I found the Catholic teachings gave me a lot of conflict. However, I was taught a basis of compassion, especially in the idea of Jesus being compassionate towards prostitutes and other sinners.

Perhaps any genuine understanding of others needs to overcome this projection of self onto others. I have experienced so much of this projection from others and it can be extremely toxic. People always seem to be giving advice and I think that I am allergic to advice It is always based on others' own experiences and ignores the whole way in which we are unique individuals.

I have done some training in counselling and the basic principle of most forms of counselling is the need to listen and not give advice. This makes sense to me, but I know that some people are put off counselling because the counsellor or therapist doesn't offer solutions. Personally, I see it as far more problematic if some one tries to guide another too directly because it is not possible to step inside another's own personal perspective truly.

I would say that understanding of others needs to overcome the attempt to know what the other needs entirely, and keep an open mind, allowing for unique individuality.

I really don't think that we would manage this time of social distancing at all if it was not for telephones and online interaction. My mother relies on 2 phone calls from me daily and doesn't use computers at all, but has television. I do feel that using this forum has helped me during the current time because I have read and written on it virtually every day for the last few months.

Of course, all this electronic communication has made life so different. I used to get really frustrated when I met friends and the conversation kept being interrupted by them responding to texts. Now, I am doing the same. My mother has almost grabbed my phone from my fingers on a couple of occasions when I have been in her home, tapping out my responses on my phone on this forum. So, it does mean that we can be in the presence of others but not truly present for them. In the shared house I am myself and others are often preparing food in the kitchen, each involved with our phones, but more or less locked into our own separate universes.

But I have always been in wonder at the way we can be taken into other realities electronically. As a child, I viewed records and cassettes as more or less a miracle, for the whole way in which sound can be imprinted into grooves. Even though I do like paper books, I do think that e-books are wonderful because it means that it is possible to carry around a whole library, which is so light, unlike the weight of heavy books.

So, generally I am in favour of electronic communication, because it opens up so many possibilities. I do still wish to have face to face, embodied communication, too, so it is probably about getting the right balance.

I agree that sometimes people confuse emotionality with compassion because compassion is more than emotions. However, I am not sure at all about the way you divide emotion as being all about self and compassion as all about other. Okay, in some ways we can be restricted by virtue of emotion realm experience and perspective of the self, but I would say that our approach to others is connected to that towards others. The link is that our feelings towards others' needs stems from our understanding of our own individual ones.

Even though we are talking in jest, you have made a valid point in raising the idea of determinism in connection with compassion. That is to what extent does our biological nature program us towards compassion or against it, and the whole role is nurture in cultivating it.

I remember writing an essay question in sixth form: Are criminals born or made? I remember one aspect which I found in research was some evidence that men born with XYY chromosomes are more likely to commit crimes and end up in prisons. Here, the idea seems as if the extra Y chromosomes would give an additional tendency to aggression. I am not sure that compassion is simply about absence of aggression but it could be part of it. I know that many people believe that women are more nurturing than men and this could involve the whole role of biology and hormones. Of course, I am not wishing to perpetuate stereotypes and I am sure that men can be caring and compassionate. I am sure that history provides many examples of compassionate men, such as Ghandi.

Perhaps the way we are taught to a act plays an important role. Families which value compassion probably try to encourage this. I am sure that cultural valuing of compassion is important and perhaps the recent notion of the importance of 'emotional intelligence' is also one which helps cultivate it too.

One book I am reading, relevant to the idea of imagination and Plato's idea of forms is, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundation of Science', by Leon Marvell (2016). In this book, the author is exploring the whole dimension of ideas.

In it he says,'a disciplined imagination leads one to a more accurate picture of reality, and an unfettered imagination leads one more astray.' I think that this distinction is important because we are looking at the difference between seeing subjective truths and more objective ones, although I am not sure that this distinction is clearcut.

He also suggests a,
'notion of ideal objects existing in fourth-dimensional space. Rather than a world of physical objects, however, it is a "problem space. Of central importance is the notion that ideas and conceptions possess a logical dimension outside of time, such that the force of certain ideas will become apparent to certain individuals outside of material, causal factors.'

I am aware that this quote does refer to it as a 'logical dimension', but nevertheless it is one which involves the imagination in order to enter into it. This is the way I see imagination, as not just being about mere personal fantasy, but of connecting to a dimension in its own right, and I believe that belief in Plato's idea of forms is dependent on this. So, the way in which imagination is involved is as a means of tapping into this source. It is a way of knowing which does involve reason and logic, but the point which I would stress is that it does suggest a realm or objective dimension, and this also involves imagination in the true sense of the word, as in conjuring up images.

Yes, compassion is recyclable if you wash it thoroughly and remember to put it in an orange back and tie it up properly. Perhaps the part that will be useful is if you chop off the initial prefix and keep 'passion' as something which can be used to keep us going when life and all the philosophies seem to lead us to a flat picture of everything.

From discussion that I have had with some people I know, especially those I used to work with, it seems that many see unique expressions and being valued as an individual as something to be experienced in family life and personal life. In other words, go to work and put on a robotic self to get money in order to enjoy freedom outside of work. One of my friends recommended that I should see it that way, but I don't really feel able to split myself up in that way. If I try to act as a robot, I just seem to become a dysfunctional machine.

Personally, I am inclined to think that the more organisations push the arts out of the picture the more the value of the unique gets lost. Of course, I am in favour of science as a tool for critical analysis, but when this gets overblown, without any regard to the arts, I think that it all gets one sided. What we are beginning to see in many organisations is science and technology as the supreme champions with the arts squeezed into a little corner and I believe that this allows for dehumanization.

I remember someone saying to me, 'You are like some kind of artsy fartsy magic mushroom eater.'

Have you read 'The Outsider,' by Colin Wilson? It is one of my favourite books as it explores the whole way in which artists and other creative people see life from a different angle and have difficulty fitting into mainstream society.

I used to feel affiliation with the various subcultures ranging from the hippies, punk, goth etc. and I love music festivals. I think that we need a new subculture because all this seems retro nowadays. I think that there are ones around rap and someone told me about one called drill, but I am not that keen on rap.

Perhaps we need a new avant garde in art, literature, or even philosophy, such as a 'post' post modernism.

I think that knowing the ideas of the original teachings goes beyond translations of texts. It is also about looking at what became included in accepted teachings. In thinking of Christianity there was so much tension in the early Church, especially with the whole wish to suppress Gnostic thought. So, it is also about what got included in The New Testament and what got excluded. I have briefly looked at some of the Gnostic gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hamadi, and my thoughts when I read them was how they seemed more consistent with Eastern thought.

This is a very good question. How do we know about the underlying forms themselves. Apart from a priori knowledge, perhaps intuition is another means of inductive reason. Perhaps the role of imagination is not given enough importance and can also be a way of grasping the underlying forms as well. In some ways, imagination may be considered as subjective, but that doesn't mean that it can, at it's best, be a means of gaining access to some non physical truths, such as the underlying Forms of which Plato speaks.

It is hard to know what Jesus would have thought about animals and compassion. I cannot see why animals should be excluded from the picture. I didn't know that Descartes saw them as empty autonoms. Of course, they are different from humans but Descartes' picture seems a bit limited.

What I have noticed when I did a Google search on the philosophy of compassion, it does seem that the idea has been looked at more from an Eastern perspective. Perhaps this is connected to the way in which Western civilisation and Christianity has been more inclined to the idea of the battle between good and evil and the whole dominance of control of nature, in general. I believe that this is more about the way Christianity developed rather than the actual teachings of Christ, because I see a lot of overlap between his whole approach to life and that of the Buddha.

I would agree that,for some, compassion is 'self appeasement' and that is why the topic needs philosophical discussion. I think that indifferent is a problem that is real in many aspects of human life today and does need to be faced. I would say that many people simply follow rules and regulations and do close their eyes to many injustices, especially homelessness.

The questions which you raise are useful for thinking about effective compassion, or we could say going beyond it as a feeling to the nitty gritty of life. What you are really looking at is where there are conflicts of interest.

One example, would be the whole idea of 'just' war, where people take action to fight against injustice. An obvious that would be how people actively fought against the Nazi's in Germany out of compassion for the those suffering the atrocities in concentration camps. Many movements, including the whole anti-apartheid movement and animal rights are fueled by compassion and prevention of harm.

Even the complexities of the current pandemic are about compassion concerns and the competing harms which need to be addressed. There is compassionate concern to prevent the vulnerable people from getting extremely ill or dying and it is with this ending of harm that the extreme sanctions are being placed on everyone. However, this is not without problems because many people are experiencing extreme harm by the long periods of lockdown restrictions. Here, we are talking about extreme poverty, homelessness, many people not having routine health checks, in addition to an extreme rise in serious mental health problems. So, here we can see that compassionate concern to stop the harm of the virus is creating a whole load of other problems for large numbers of the population and this also needs to be addressed with compassion. Concern for one side of prevention of harm has to see it in the widest way here rather than a narrow one, because we are talking about competing harms.

This is probably where the philosophy of compassion comes in because we all probably have our own sympathies, in the concerns we have and this needs to be looked at as an ethical framework rather than just about empathy. In particular, we may feel the most compassionate for our family and friends. However, if we just fight for the concerns of our loved ones this can be to the exclusion of the needs of those outside of our immediate concern. It may be easier to see and respond to the need to protect an elderly relative rather than the needs of strangers who are living as homeless on the streets. It is at this wider level of prevention of harm that empathy requires consideration of more universal and objective measures.

It seems that you are saying that morality is purely subjective. I think that your emphasis on the way in which being able to live with consequences is an important one, and one that a lot of people don't really stop and think about. Personally, when I make personal decisions I think about whether I can live with the consequences, even though we cannot always see the long term consequences. But, nevertheless, I do see the validity of your argument in the way it is not the typical utilitarian, more generalised emphasis on the greater good. It gives focus to the intention of living with actions, which seems to combine intention of the act and the consequences, and I think that this is a workable way for thinking about ethics.

Of course, some would see it as relativist, especially as it does not have any sense of there being anything that is absolutely wrong. The only problem we end up with is what do we make of the person who has no conscience and can live with the consequences of anything: murder, rape or genocide. That is where things become a bit tricky with what I will call the subjective utilitarian approach. Do we say that there is no objective criteria and that there are no objective moral principles at all? This is where we begin to get into the rough waters and possible moral nihilism. Okay, most of us have consciences but, unfortunately, not everyone does.

It is hard to distinguish between lies and misconceptions. I was taught how Mary gave birth to Jesus, as in the virgin birth, and I somehow thought that was how all children were conceived. When children at school told me the facts of life, I refused to believe, until they showed me it in writing, in a book.

I actually think that compassion is not something which we can achieve easily because it is often hard enough to help ourselves, let alone others. I started the discussion because I thought that it is an esteemed principle, but not simple to translate it into practice. Personally, I do not see it as being opposed to self interest, because if we cannot even serve our own interests we cannot even begin to meet those of other people. I am not attacking ethical egoism, but wishing to see fulfilling one's own desires to be superseded by that of reaching out to others to offer whatever support we can. However, I do believe that it is not simple to achieve in practice because we can get stuck in the rut of focusing on our own goals and desires.

As far as giving things up, surely this would only be about giving up that which involves harming others. It may involve more cooperation and sharing but certainly not just ideas about self sacrifice. I would not recommend the striving for compassion for the sake of feeling righteous, because that is not genuine compassion at all. I am speaking about the need for understanding of suffering and responding through responsible actions.

You are more in touch with the traditional side of religious music. My own experience is of far more alternative music, including psychedelia and prog rock, and even some metal, but I do see it as a way of connecting with the powers in the universe in some primal way. I do have some music of a new age style, focusing on healing, including one musician Tim Wheater.

But I probably take art more seriously than music because I do a lot of art work. I would love to make art and writing of a symbolic nature. I have experimented in this briefly but not pursued as fully as I hope to. I find symbolic art fascinating, especially the more esoteric. I also like symbolic writing and I am trying to get through 'A Vision', by WB Yeats but it is taking me a while because it is difficult to read because it is extremely esoteric.

I just noticed your last idea of an image of an eight armed, blue skinned guy as an image of God. It would be worth painting it and exhibiting it to find out. Of course, in some ways science fiction could be seen as a depiction of inner experience and almost has a certain amount of 'religious' power because some people claim to have seen alien forces. There is a whole tradition including van Daniken and Zachariah Sitchkin, in which there is a belief in early gods who came from space.

The whole relationship between art and religious experience is extremely interesting. The making of images of God was actually forbidden in the Old Testament, under the second of the ten commandments, but throughout Christianity there has been so much art created of a visionary, religious nature. I was brought up in the Catholic tradition but I would imagine that the other forms of Christianity have plenty of it.

I would say that the study of religious experience is so bound up with the symbolism revealed in religious art. One way of thinking about this is the architecture and art of churches and other religious buildings, including the gothic movement and the many designs in churches, including stained glass windows. Part of the idea about stained glass windows is the whole way in which they are designed to reflect the light of the 'divine.' William Blake's art is extremely interesting in the way he depicts angels and demons, and this is supposedly based on his own visionary experiences.

The whole story of esoteric systems is also so bound up with symbolism, such as that associated with alchemy and the quest for the grail. Personally, I am fascinated with Hindu art and the power of the imagery it conveys. I think that the whole story of comparative religion is conveyed so well through looking at the icons and imagery within the various traditions.

I would say that the most ridiculous lie children are taught is the idea of Father Christmas. You might think that I am being ridiculous but I do believe that it is a damaging idea. Personally, my parents only went along with it superficially and I stopped believing it at about 4 years old because I was aware that our family home fireplace was blocked off by a piece of wood and that it was not possible for Father Christmas to be everywhere at once. However, when I started school everyone else in my class believed in the idea and I didn't say anything because they needed to think for themselves and it seems that some children believe in this until about age 7. Children often seem let down when they discover it is a lie.

The reason why I think that the idea is not good is that I think it encourages people to adopt foolish foundations and illusions. It is rather different from religious beliefs because they are held genuinely, whereas Father Christmas is a nonsensical lie and does not have any benefit in helping children's understanding of reality.

I think that you make some very good points. It is highly likely that compassion is not enough to solve the world's problems and I see it more as a starting point. Perhaps that is why it is not discussed that much in philosophy communities, although when I did do a web search it does seem that this has been explored more from writing based on Eastern philosophy.Even Shopenhauer was influenced by Eastern thought.

Apart from compassion focused actions, it could be that what we need is philosophers who write from a compassionate point of view. This would involve a complex blend of emotion and reasoning in developing ideas, but I am not suggesting that this is not happening at all. Many recent books which I see do seem to go beyond the dry logic of much of the academic philosophy tradition of the last century, so perhaps it will be the direction forwards.I am not saying that the matter of compassion is just a dichotomy between feeling or reasoning but a whole approach of genuine concern, or to go back to the idea @Nikolas mentioned to me, from Simone Weil, of being witnesses to another's pain. Perhaps writing which comes from that perspective will embody the idea of compassion in a true philosophical way.

Ps. I edited this after writing it because I felt it was not finished.