Your comment captivates the element which I was thinking about when I was creating the debate, especially as I have a fascinating with music which is extremely dark. In particular, I became interested in metal music when I was studying art therapy. It seemed to be a way of exploring my own shadow side.

Your mention of Marilyn Manson is particularly important because he was and probably is interested in the whole idea of Jung's idea of the shadow. I know this because I read his autobiography. Actually, he said that he thought he was the antichrist at one point. However, over a period of time this idea lessened. He has read a fair amount of philosophy. I have a few of his albums although I don't listen to them very much. I would say that the one that is the most listenable is 'Mechanical Animals'.

But having dived off into talking about Marilyn Manson, I realise the point that you were making is what if someone ends up committing suicide through absorption in this music. Certainly the whole emo (emotional hardcore) genre was esteemed by suicidal teenagers. You could ask whether it just emerged in response to a growing number of teenagers who were depressed or did it in itself promote a culture of depression and self harm. Emo music has faded out of the mainstream now, although I recently saw My Chemical Romance's 'The Black Parade' in a chart of greatest albums of all times.

But, the other side of the argument about music is that music which is dark helps in the most darkest moments and perhaps we need the music which resonates with our worst feelings. So, I would say that while we probably need to be balanced in our listening it would be a mistake to try to avoid all the music which is dark. Perhaps such music prevents many suicides.

But, music and the arts we enjoy is not just about the personal it is about effects on others. So, we could also query whether it is dangerous in the sense of stirring up hatred? What effect does the music of mass entertainment have on people, on a conscious and subconscious level.Does certain music support and invite prejudice and violence?

Of course, it would go deeper than just the lyrics. I would wonder what certain music does on a vibrational level. Here, may be where we begin to see the complexity of music on the subliminal level. Music and the arts are about states of consciousness and it is this potential of the arts that I am really wondering about.

Your response is mostly about whether artists are processing the underlying the cultural meaning of what they are creating. I am sure that many people making art in its various forms are not thinking that much about this, especially in popular art. If you take many best selling authors I am sure that the biggest concern is about making money and also about public creditably. I am sure that is the case in music too. Concerns about popularity can have such a negative effect. It is often that many rock bands music appears to deteriorate once they become mainstream.

The whole idea of art as involving concepts is interesting. Here, it is a conscious intention and we can think of all the various movements ranging from surrealism in art to the idea of punk or glam rock. Of course, beyond the movements we have all the unique concepts the individuals, such the whole idea of the stream of consciousness in James Joyce's novels.

The theme you have raised between subtle and conscious is one that is so vast that it could in itself be made into a dissertation.

I am not advocating a sense of inferiority. I do believe in aiming for one's best and I do not equate superiority with ability My point about the problem of a sense of superiority is more the way in which pride can go wrong and be about power over others. But I do believe in empowerment and certainly not false humility.

What I am talking about is superiority and the dark shadow it casts. I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.

I am glad that you think that art matters in many ways because I believe that there are many people who don't, including some people who value philosophy highly. I would say that art does have a major impact at a subconscious level.

It is also interesting that you suggest that art can be too 'light,' I would say that it can be about surface and lack depth. Perhaps that which 'dark' has the ability to explore the subconscious and explore the unknown.

Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.

You speak of a parent's role. In that role, the parent is in the position of having greater experience since he or she has lived longer. However, that is best seen of a transitional state, probably to the point where a child reaches adulthood because we would not always see older people as having more knowledge. Of course, that is not to dismiss the wisdom of older people , who were revered as elders in more traditional societies.

Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.

It is interesting to hear your perspective because I don't think any of the Filipinos I have known have ever talked about the social conditions or politics of their country.

I have conversed with many people from Africa, although many were from towns, not villages. Often, the Africans I have known were in favour of following a lifestyle based on the English one, although, of course, they were ones who had chosen to come here. However, I think that some of them did hope to return to Africa at some point in the future.

It is useful to hear the views of people who come from or are living in Third World countries, as an alternative perspective to that of English or American culture.

I know that you are talking about a hypothetical situation but I am living in a house with 8 people from many different countries in England. A couple of them barely speak any English and I don't speak any of their languages so I do feel partly in the situation you describe.

Despite coming from different countries individually, there are two couples who are able to communicate with their partners in some common language. One of these people, who has some English language communicates with me, and even uses the language translation device on the phone as an aid. One person who is by himself does not speak to anyone else at all.

Of course, what you are describing is a bit different from an island, but it is lockdown, so a time of relative isolation. We don't have a cleaning rota and no house rules. Each time I am about to eat, I find my cutlery, plates missing or lying about used by someone.

My situation is more than hypothetical, so I thought I might as well describe it for you for thinking about your imaginary one.

I think that fear is part of it. I am also aware of another tradition which is the whole law of attraction. I am not sure that it is accepted in scientific circles but I find that it makes sense. It is a different slant to the law of karma, although both probably stem from esoteric sources.

The law of karma looks backwards and is in its essence about cause and effect. It probably involves people's own sense of conscience. The law of attraction in the view of Esther and Jeremy Hicks and a number of other writers involves how we bring about manifest reality based on intentions. However, it is not just about conscious goals but also about subconscious aspects, such as fear. In a way, it may appear as if karma and the law of attraction are opposed but I think that they are interconnected somehow.

Causality is a complex topic and I am not saying that the idea of karma or the law of attraction have captured the whole picture. But causality remains a puzzle even within science and I think many quantum physicist speak of indeterminancy However, I do think that when we think about changes in the world, social and political action most obviously play a major role. But I do think it involves the whole question of manifestation. So, how do you view causation?

I am sure that early hominids did care for the sick and the elderly. Perhaps the problems we are in here is that we have become reliant on institutions. It is complicated because while we may have become dependent on these institutions we do need them because they are enabling us to live longer.

We need the hospitals to provide good quality care. But then we are in a situation that people may end up living so long that even the offspring are middle aged or elderly themselves. So, this means that more people are in residential care.

I am sure that life in some countries, and possibly life where you are in the Phillipines, is very different. In some ways you are probably living a more community based existence which is has benefits. But it has costs too. In particular, you mentioned that it was likely that when vaccines come your country will get a poor quality one.

So the question is how far should development go? Third World countries have been modelling the development of Western countries. But the Western countries are far from perfect. The question is to what extent should people be reliant on large institutions or more community based?

Yes, I have been coming from the view that the whole doomsday predictions are coming from the scientists and disciplines and is not just the territory of the religious. I would say it was the views of these other points of view which probably make me think outside of my own religious background initially.

I was aware of a danger of the way in which the religious expectation of the end times may have a self fulfilling prophecy and I do believe that this fuelled the development of the nuclear arms

But what about all the other ideologies?

The end of the millennium passed and even the mythic 2012 of the Mayan calendar, but many thinkers, including the scientists were thinking that we are not out of danger and one of the biggest fears is climate change.

While I am sure that the scientists fears are evidence based, I do still wonder about the role of self fulfilling prophecy, perhaps in the mass psyche of humanity. I also wonder about the whole participant observer role recognised within science. Our bias affects what we see, and how we respond. How does this manifest in reality?

It is this concern which makes me choose to focus upon the more utopian dreams, because our perceived reality may have implications for what becomes manifest in the world.

Yes, in the last few months when I wake up and see the news I almost wonder if everything is a dream. So perhaps we are in this simulation already and I am aware that many are probably suffering much more than I am.

I would say that obviously every one has to have a point of view or we would be like jellyfish floating in a sea of unknowing but the danger is moral or political arrogance. It is so easy evil on to to project onto others, whether it is Hitler or Bin Laden.

Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging.

With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension. I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.

It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.

You say that,
'You don't believe that you are equal to the Nazi's or that the Nazi's are equal to you. Exactly.'

I think you are suggesting that each of us believes in some kind of superiority, and would imply that I think that I am "better' than the Nazi's. Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others.

I don't have much experience of babies but I plenty of experience of sleep deprivation through being kept awake due to noise or difficult shift patterns. It is such a problem if you are meant to study or work. I would just say that you can only push yourself so far. To do more than that may make you ill or perform badly, even if you keep reading all the hard books. Perhaps you could have a little sleep in the day to make up for the lack during the night.

I have used enough caffeine for work and studies to know how it creates insomnia. I could not give up my coffee but try to take it earlier in the day. I also think that when coffee stops working it is a sign you have overused it. I often take over the counter tablets to enable me to sleep because I find that if I don't get enough sleep I can't function properly. I am not suggesting that you should take such tablets yourself but I do believe that you might do worse in your study if you just force yourself to study more and survive with hardly any sleep.

I also hope that you get some advice which is more geared up to someone struggling with life around babies, because that is one of the few problems I have not encountered so far.

The frustration about your emphasis on America was more related to the site in general because there seem to be so many threads on it. Nevertheless, I do agree that there are great dramas and I did see all the riots and was rather astounded. I hardly dare imagine what will happen on the day of the inauguration. It is just as much of the turbulence of the world as the pandemic. It must be extremely difficult living in America at this time.

We are in a state of emergency in London now. Of course, severe restrictions had to come but it does feel awful being hardly allowed to do anything. I am not used to sitting indoors all the time and the various rules and restrictions have gone on for so long. I know that it is necessary but it is affecting everyone's mental health, especially the isolation we are meant to endure. But perhaps we will all become stronger through it eventually.

I just wish to point out that you say that the Nazi's may not have loathed themselves and they killed themselves because they did not want to live with an inferior race. The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others.

Yes, I think that there are signs of hope. We obviously measure partly on the basis of what we see in our own country and we are all across the world. My own feeling is that there do seem to be some definite positive indications.

I do wonder if we had been in a different historical epoch whether we would have just had an emphasis on the survival of the fittest. As it is, there is a concern about meeting the needs of vulnerable people and many people are not being completely self-centred. Perhaps we are beginning to see the better side of human nature.

I am quite sure that people who have strong prejudices are not wishing to change and are comfortable with beliefs. On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself.

The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.

It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.?Certainly, my own experience in dealing with racist and homophobic etc people is that you can argue with such people and end up not getting anywhere. My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind.

I believe in free speech and open discussion but the problem is that people can end up hurting people with their hatred. But, it is true that hatred of others probably stems from self hatred.

Perhaps it has been pressed already because the whole world is in such a deep mess, but I hope that we can climb out of hell, and find the 'Stairway to Heaven.'

The topic of political correctness is complex and subtle. Being politically correct can be over the top if it gets too rigid. If everything we say has to end up sounding like an equal opportunities statement it can border on to the ridiculous. On the other hand how far should people be allowed to go in expressing prejudices?

I would say that part of the problem is that people often use political correctness to cover up there own prejudices. Perhaps on some level, we all have prejudices, which are really preconceived assumptions. There is a danger that too much political correctness can simply push prejudice underground, to fester, but emerge in some more dangerous way.

But it is a grey area, because if no attempts are made to rule out prejudiced opinions, against any racial or other group, it can get to the point where prejudice is just acceptable.

I would say that there is some tension between the ideas of truth and what appears interesting to read, or the 'filth'. I would say, generally speaking, what catches people's attention is sensation. I would say that many people are not interested in reading or thinking about where humanity is going. I am not sure if it is because the topic is too intense or because it is just too complicated.
Perhaps they would like an easy solution and switch off when one is not being offered.

I have always been concerned with the question of where humanity is going. Perhaps that makes me a utopian dreamer. I remember speaking about the topic to a college tutor and he said that I should go off to the mountains and find some aging hippies to talk to. Obviously he was being sarcastic but I found it quite funny really. But, at the same time, the fate of humanity and the planet is a serious topic. It is a problem if people prefer discussing sensation and filth or even trivia because we are in a deep mess, and that was before the pandemic even began.

There are many people who are concerned about these questions but many are not interested. While we have spoken about reading conspiracy theory as a stimulus for thought I am not sure that many do. They prefer to see a view as concretely true or rubbish it entirely.

Sometimes I start to wonder if there is something wrong with me for grappling with issues as I do. Well meaning people have often told me to 'get a life' rather than pondering philosophically. However, now we cannot go out much anymore because it is as if the world is shutting down. In a conversation on this thread recently someone said that it seems that the chance of the pandemic as a wakeup call is passing us by. It makes me think of an album title by Metallica, 'Hard-wired to Self Destruct'. I wonder if this is the destiny of the human race?

I just noticed that you have just claimed that I do not 'understand/ value the desire for the aesthetic discussion' in your recent post and I was rather struck by it wondering if it is true. I began reading the thread a couple of days ago and probably started responding to it because in some ways it followed on from some ideas about art and creativity.

I admit that while I read a lot on philosophy I have not read that much on aesthetics. I am not sure if that is because I don't find the discussion important enough or because at this point I have not discovered a book on it which has appealed to me strongly. Yet, I think about the arts on a daily basis and one of main interests is art and creative writing. I care about quality of those and do read books about the techniques of those crafts for improving quality and a certain appreciation of aesthetics but slightly different I would imagine from the 'official' philosophy discussion of aesthetics.

Perhaps I should begin to read more on the philosophy of aesthetics. However, I am not sure whether aesthetics is best as a philosophical quest or whether it is best explored an artistic pursuit, as expressed in many creative writing books, 'show don't tell'. I am not wishing to dismiss the philosophy of aesthetics but I would want to approach it with a view to an enhanced appreciation of perception,and rather than abstract arguments, and one which can enhance artistic creation.

So, we probably agree. I have enough problems in conversations in real life when I use words people haven't heard of, such as the basic ones of philosophy. I end up having to explain the words. When I write I want to be understood because I would not be writing unless I was trying to communicate and explain an idea I have.

As no one has responded to you yet my playful word associated around the idea of levels of consciousness. What also comes to mind is the Avicci track 'Levels', which I associate with levels of consciousness even though I have no idea whether it is about that at all.

If my response is disappointing I am sorry, but you gave so little clues about what your idea of levels is.

I think that the danger is probably when people end up really believing in the conspiracy theories and I would guess that the people who write the books really do. I have to admit that I probably enjoy some of the ideas of extreme thinking just because they stimulate my imagination to view possible alternative ways of seeing

I can confess to having a David Icke book sitting on my shelf. Some of his ideas are really way out, especially the idea that the British royal family are shapeshifing reptiles. However, he does have some positive ideas and his books can be fun to read. We could regard conspiracy theories as the soap operas of philosophy.

I see your point and I would say that the argument both in favour of or against jargon can work depending on your standpoint.

I admit that I have not read that much phenomenology. That is because it is not the background I come from. I have studied more psychology than philosophy. However, I have done philosophy modules but not in phenomenology. That is not to say that I don't plan to read in that direction ever but at the moment I am reading the books which I have first. Probably, whether I read it will depend on how important it stands out for me because we cannot possibly read all areas of thought. I am particularly interested in the research into schizophrenia and autism, so my reading could go in the direction of phenomenology.

In favour of the use of jargon I would say that it can enable specialists to use specific language which navigates complex matters. It has reference points and enables a sophisticated discussion in certain areas of ideas.

On the other hand, it can be used as a form of mystification. I am not suggesting that you are using it in the way that I am about to speak of but I am speaking of a danger. That is when people use jargon to sound really clever and taken to its extreme is when people think that if their writing is so not comprehensible to others it is sign that they are so clever that others cannot understand them. I am not saying that the philosophers you aspire to have done this, but I certainly think that some philosophy has gone in that direction.

I would say that jargon has its role and certainly specialised topics can benefit from it. There is nothing wrong with being a bit esoteric at times.However, I think jargon is sometimes best used with caution unless if it is about only communicating with an exclusive community. Perhaps I was taught entirely wrongly in my academic studies, but I was encouraged to use some jargon, but sparingly.

I agree with you about testimonies, including near death experiences. The people who had them did not die finally. I think that the real problem with the question of life after death is that we don't know the answer ultimately. I was brought up to believe that it existed, but questioned it and I go through phases when I do or do not believe in it. I think that because it is speculation it is easy to build up belief for or against it. Really, I hover between wanting and not wanting it to be true.

Yes, I am not against capitalism in itself and can see the value of the ideas of Adam Smith. But, as you say, it is a problem if not regulated and materialism is a problem. I am inclined towards the view that we need a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

It is a horrific reality and problem that almost everything seems to increase the division between the rich and the poor.

I have been hoping that the pandemic could be a wake up call. I hope that you are wrong to think that the chance is slipping away. If this is not the opportunity I don't think there ever will be one. Do you think there is any hope for a better world? In saying that, I am thinking of poverty and the redistribution of wealth, but also the whole problem of ecology and climate change. I already saw on my phone today that there is a prediction for 2021 to be the hottest ever. Sometimes it does feel like the end of the world but I do have some belief that it could also be some kind of beginning of a new cycle.

Do you think that the pandemic will have any impact on capitalism? I have wondered if it will make an even greater divide between the wealthy and the poor, or whether it could cause such chaos, to make money obsolete. Have you any view or ideas about this?

I have read your reply a few times. I have done some more reading of Kant on knowledge and morals, but I have not read his writings on aesthetics at all.

I understand that you are saying that there are objective aesthetic truths. What I am wondering is, as we all have our own subjective tastes, whether it matters if there are objective ones. I can see that it is worth exploring objective knowledge of knowledge and morality because it alters the way we behave, but with aesthetics is it worth trying to find the objective ones at all.

I am wondering what benefits it would have for appreciation of arts and for making it. Even if someone showed me the objective beauty of Beethoven over metal and dance music I would probably still not favour Beethoven. The worst scenario would be that the objective aesthetics would be used by some to justify a certain superiority of taste. I knew someone who studied English literature at Cambridge and he frowned upon the fiction I read, seeing fantasy writing in the category of drug inspired writing.

So, for me, I am not saying that there are no objective aesthetics if we look for them but is it worthwhile seeking this?. Do the objective standards have any value for us as subjective beings?

I agree that greed and stupidity are problems and probably a lot of people don't have the motivation to overcome them. Do you have any ideas on how they can be addressed on a collective level because I am not sure that education or politics even addresses them fully.

I agree with you that we need science to come up with answers. We also probably need wisdom. With conspiracy theories, if taken concretely they lead us to a deadend. But I do have to admit that they raise questions. I have wondered at times if the Covid_19 virus could be germ warfare, especially in the wake of new strains arising in different parts of the world. Right at the beginning I wondered about the whole tension between China and America. I am not saying that I do believe that it is germ warfare but perhaps conspiracy theories do raise some interesting questions.

I am not making any judgements about your mental state but about the tone of the writing. But I don't really feel that we should continue this conversation because we are not getting anywhere. I have already said points in your favour as well. So, I will leave it there and allow the flow of your thread to continue.

I don't see the relevance of the question. Most of the people on this site are more anonymous than I am. We are not meant to have disclose our personal details.

You see you project straight back. When I interact with you, I come away so frustrated. You seem to write with such a tone of passive aggression. I think that it something that you do need to address because you do have a lot of good points to say as well.

You write very good thread questions and I think that you should take pride in that. But, I think that you need to look into yourself more rather than project all your anger outwards. Of course, I am not saying that the need for self examination applies just to but to every one of us.

Actually, I think part of the problem of our time is that people project onto others. Sometimes all the problems are projected as political ones and perhaps we need to examine ourselves and our own assumptions more as a starting point, whether or not this is viewed as the territory of philosophy.

What do you propose as a better tool than philosophy? I would certainly say that we need other disciplines but surely philosophy is one which can lead the way on the subject of reason. You say that there was morality before philosophy, but we are talking about primitive society. Also, surely we need to go forwards not backwards. I am not saying reason alone is important but, at the same time, surely we need more reason rather than less of it in these chaotic times.

Okay, you have written three paragraphs but reading through them, that is what appears to be the subtle underlying message. I am also answering the title of your thread question. However, I am not really sure what you are actually trying to say or ask.