I agree that knowledge is accrued. Perhaps the way in which certain viewpoints come and go as the predominantly popular frames of reference is in cycles.

You make the whole antinatalist approach sound as if it is about weighing risks, and choosing adoption in preference to procreation. However, when I have got into discussions over antinatalism the whole argument is very narrow.

It tends to make sweeping emotional appeals about suffering, leading to the belief that it would be better to not having been born at all, with an overriding conclusion that it is wrong morally to bring children into the world.

I do agree that there is no absolute one truth waiting to be found. As a teenager I think I would have liked to find a magic answer waiting to be found but, really, it would probably make life very dull.

I am glad that you have joined in the debate and I like your point about determining creation stories as being problematic, because in spite of science many people in society do still take them literally.

I am also pleased that you read the writings of Joseph Campbell as I think his analysis of the symbolic dimensions of life are so valuable.

I certainly agree that while, Science may have the strongest claim to truth' the questions of philosophy cannot be grasped by science alone. But I think that philosophy is in danger of going too far towards reductive materialism and that in doing so it will stray away from the task of enabling people to think critically, and become too obscure.

I take your point that, 'If you're interested in uncovering knowledge epistemology might answer your question.' I would not wish to ignore epistemology. I do believe that the majority of people, on some level, ask how can I know. But, also I do believe that cultural differences raise questions about truth as well.

The anthropological study of cross-cultural categorical is an important marker. In, 'Magic, science, religion, and the scope of rationality', Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah(1990) suggest that the,
'translation of cultures and their comparative study raises not only the question of the mentality of us and other peoples, but also ultimately the issue of "rationality" itself, and the limits of western "scientism" as a paradigm.'

'it's all mythos really. We construct narratives to make sense of the world. Science is just a lot more constrained in so far as it has to fit data and make restrictions.'

Personally, I agree with you although I think that many of a scientific persuasion would like to claim that there path is the most accurate and valid.

You say, 'we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth,' and I do believe that on a daily basis most people search beyond the findings of science, which are just the foundations. And here, is where I would say that relativity comes in because everyone's search is unique.

The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' Of course, I realise that many people reject the idea of the collective unconscious and many find Jung's writings to be a bit mystical.

Personally, confronted by all the ambiguities of religion and science I have found his writings to be a helpful way of untangling knots in my own thinking. But I realise that each person approaches the matter of truth in their own individual way.

I have been out today and found more responses to my post than I expected. So, I will read them thoroughly and hopefully respond to the various comments tomorrow.

Thanks for all the comments,
Jack

I just noticed that at the bottom of your post that you asked what I meant by the idea of mythic truths. What I was implying is that certain ideas can be seen as containing meaningful on the level of story or as archetypal. Here, I am adopting the ideas of Carl Jung and the ideas of Joseph Campbell, who both looked to the recurrence of symbolism in everyday life and within religious beliefs.

Yes, I think that there has been historical conflict between the ideas of religion and science and that evolution has been a stumbling block for many. But of course, it does depend on how literally people take the Bible. If the story of Adam and Eve is seen more as a mythic account rather than a factual one it is easier to reconcile the conflict between The Bible and religion.

However, when I spoke of religious belief I was not speaking of Christianity alone. I was thinking of the varieties of belief and if anything the issue of us being aware of all the possibilities before us can make us less common to one. I was brought up as a Catholic and have not completed discarded all these beliefs but I have certainly thought outside of the confines of what I was taught as a child. I have been strongly influenced by Hinduism and Buddhism. So, I could be accused of mixing and matching according to my own preferences.

Perhaps it is hard for many to see any reason to believe in anything beyond the material world in the face of the whole spectrum of science. I have seen foundations for possible belief in more than the material world by the whole area of discussion of God and the new physics.

In particular, I have read 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, but I would imagine that the whole idea of God expressed in this book may be hard for many to equate with the God they have been brought up to believe in, and of course many are not brought up with any specific belief systems at all. I do not even mean that they have been brought up as actual atheists as such, but just that they have not been given a specific worldview at all. They are left to dismiss the whole questions of definite beliefs at all, and in this sense they have all the different views available to them, including the various scientific accounts. And, here it is possible to be blinded by the relativity of all the competing ideas and values.

I am afraid I cannot possibly grasp your maths theories although they sound fascinating, so I will reread what you say in the morning as I am reading this in the middle of the night. Besides, I struggled with maths at school but it would have been better if we had looked at theories. I feel the same way about physics, having done reading on physics after not being able to connect with the subject at school.

But the point you are making is that you have found new ideas after being told that there would be no new ideas which is promising. I expect the same is true in philosophy. I would love to be the discoverer but do not necessarily think I have the knowledge and aptitude for this, but I might try. However, I certainly hope that some people will venture forth into new territories.

In fact, on another thread, @Gnomon mentioned the system of thinking he has been developing, called enformationism. So, there are people out there coming up with new ideas.

[reply="MondoR;477902"
I do agree that it is not as if all the religious people (many religions in the first place) have a unity of belief and indeed science is a broad field.

You say that the 'source of truths' can be found in the "centre point in each's own heart'. Here, you are suggesting the subjective search for truth and I do agree that we choose our beliefs subjectively. You also capture the way in which the truth is found in the 'heart' which conveys the importance of emotion and this is an important point too because philosophy sometimes focuses on the truth, in the 'head' alone, in the pursuit of rationality.

Also, while you see the questions of truth in an emotional and subjective light, I do believe that the majority of thinkers, religious or scientific, see themselves as striving for objective truth.

Your system of thought, known as enformationism is interesting as a way of trying to overcome the conflict between spiritualism and materialism. I am glad that someone is working on such an outlook and I will read more on the link you provide.

But apart from the idea of providing a system of convergence I think that there is a need for more discussion between those who hold religious perspectives and the various scientific viewpoints.

I
I do wonder if I am if I am the only person on the forum who has explored the territory between materialist science and other alternatives, as it is so easy to simply log into threads which suit familiar territories and safety.

But, certainly, from my point of view which may be disregarded as complete rubbish by all the experts, there are big, answered debates concerning science and religion, and the areas in between. As it is, it seems that they are dismissed as irrelevant to philosophy, in which the word 'qualia' is deemed almost to god-like status.

I say this, and I do not even consider myself as religious but simply wish to not be bound to certain restrictive terms, wishing for freedom in philosophical adventure and exploration.

I am aware of the antinatalist stance of Schopenhauer 1. I just think that he wrote a good thread discussion and it could have been better if the discussion could have been more expansive.
I believe that suffering is at the heart of human existence but even if you are an antinatalist that does not mean you can only discuss suffering, as well as the pessimist/political divide in view to your conclusion. The actual subject of pessimism and optimism in politics is worthy of discussion as a topic in itself.

Yes, I think you are correct to see that the whole problem of suffering is not merely about whether to have children or not. I think that this post and the whole question of pessimism and optimism could have been a fantastic area of discussion if the focus was not simply about whether or not one should procreate.

I agree with you about the whole issue of pain being part of the equation because we are sentient beings. The whole argument that consciousness is an illusion speaks as if we are like computers, with consciousnes as silmulcarum.

It also excludes the whole emotional dimension of perception of the world and I would argue that the emotional intensity and depths of the internal world is the seat of consciousness.

But I realise that I come from a different perspective really because I there may be layers of consciousness, including the more subconscious ones, as spoken of by the psychoanalytic theorists. Personally, I think that the neuroscientists capture a lot of truth. However, if philosophers speak from the perspective of neuroscience as the only relevant psychological foundation what we end up with is a one dimensional model of consciousness.

Yes, I see what you mean about the word original, so perhaps what is needed is not just original ideas but ones which give synthesis.

I can see your point that watching television, using the internet and reading books can prevent us from developing new thoughts. I think these media determines what we think about too much, setting an agenda. So, perhaps if we spent less time engaged with these we would come up with more original ideas. I sometimes feel that talking to others about philosophy can stimulate my thinking more than just reading and writing. And of course the sages relied more on spoken discussion.

But I do think that writing helps and not just writing on devices. I used to write morning pages which were 3 pages written first thing in the day, as advocated in The Artist's Way, by Julia Cameron. I used to find it often enabled me to touch base with what I was feeling and thinking. I admit that I have now got into the habit at looking at my phone first thing in the morning instead.

I would love to come up with some really original thoughts but I am inclined to think that the best way is not just to choose a topic that no one has explored enough. The reason I say this is that I believe that the most original thoughts come from experience, of battling with issues deeply. However, in philosophy there is a need to frame ideas in a way which can make them of use to others too.

I am not sure that others would agree that experiences is necessary for philosophy, because some would say that logic alone is enough. But I am inclined towards the view that passion for a topic of discussion is of great importance.

]
Yes, that is exactly what I thought about when reading the post but thought maybe the transgender part was a different debate but I see that you are making this link as well.

But in England we have just had the whole case of Kiera Bell, a woman who took puberty blockers before transitioning to become male because at age 23 she is wishing to detransition back to female. She developed a case saying that the puberty blockers and treatment to become male should have not happened at that time. She argued that, being an adolescent, she lacked 'capacity to consent', having not been given full psychological exploration when she made decisions at the age she was and she felt unable to weigh information critically prior to adulthood.

This week, it appears that her case has been taken forward as part of an argument against adolescents having capacity to consent, with the effect of puberty blocker medication being outlawed.This has sparked off a lot of anger amongst transgender teenagers, because the whole option of puberty blockers would make transitioning to the desired gender much easier.

So, the whole issue of children and surgery has vast consequences for surgery of all kinds, specifically those relating to transgender and intersex people.

In the case, of intersex individuals many were often arbitrarily assigned to genders, and some were even given surgery, or hormones without being given choice. Some may have to resort to treatment to realign with their wishes in adulthood, and have treatment in the preferred direction at a later stage. However, it could be argued that the individuals should have been asked what they wished for when they were growing up, rather than the issue being addressed much later.

So, I would say that this whole post raises big questions indeed, especially in the whole area of gender.

But outside of gender, I believe that the question of children and medical treatment raises questions about choice and would suggest that the whole issue of capacity to consent is fundamental to the debate, but this does not mean dismissing the views of the children or adolescents who are the subjects concerned..

Yes, I will try to create my 'new eyes' in order to reinvision a new way of perception, even though some may disdain me for my quest.

I hope that you are right because I am wishing to touch upon and create new ideas. My belief about philosophy is that it should embrace, rather than criticize, creativity.

I am not trying to be harsh with you, but I am not convinced that you even understand the basics of suffering at all.

I am afraid I don't see the point in discussions the matter with you further, because you are completely fixed in your belief. But I am left wondering what you have to gain in your argument. Is it the attention your posts create? But, I would rather move on because from my point of view, you use and abuse the idea of suffering in a meaningless way.

You make your case as if it is benefiting others, while in an actual fact it benefits no one, including yourself. What you have said is empty rhetoric, playing with the appeal to emotions, but not in any genuine sense . As such, I am afraid that it does not deal with the problem of of suffering at all.

It does seem to come down to conformity and thinking about matters within a set agenda and those who think outside certain terminology are seen as the 'aliens'. Perhaps language matters and as far as this forum is concerned the best term for initiating discussion is 'qualia' being mentioned.

But you are trying to enforce the position by coming up with endless reasons for your antinatalist stance.

It is a personal decision whether or not people bring people into the world and you are constantly coming up with reasons against it, and ultimately this indicates that the matter is your problem.

Who cares about what you believe about your concerns about suffering, as none of your posts convey any empathy regarding suffering or any compassion. The appeals to emotion which you make are shallow in this respect.

You are correct to identify the conflict between pessimism and optimism. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (2019), has captured this inherent tension, in saying that,
'You can predict thinkers' place in the political spectrum by looking at how optimistic or pessimistic they are about the human condition. On the one hand, optimists, who think human nature is good, want to liberate the human spirit to fulfill itself. Pessimists, who think humans are irremediably wicked or corrupt, prefer restraining or repressing institutions that keep people under control'.

In this respect, I would argue that your most extreme pessimism and antinatalist stance represents an extreme example of a wish for control, with absolute lack of any creativity and scope for freedom of the human spirit.

But surely reflective awareness must come into the picture. You speak of 'images of the world and the self', but I am not sure that we can divide self and world so easily. Surely this distinction of it is made is itself dependent on consciousness.

Generally speaking, I would query your view as to whether we can determine getting what we want. I would be drawing upon the idea of the law of attraction as expressed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks.

However, I presume you are talking about life after death in the point you are making. In this sense, I would say in agreement that we cannot say that it will happen because we would like it. It either happens or not and I think that some people may believe in it because it appeals to them.

I am not even sure that I do want to live beyond death, because living this one life is hard enough. But, ultimately I see the question of life after death as being beyond the issue of personal preference and one about finding truth.

I have read your comment and the aspect of your thinking which relates to my initial idea of my thread is whole the process of consciousness after death. I think that a lot of readers response to the post have missed this subtle point, or perhaps I did not emphasise it enough. I was not just asking about the issue of immortality alone but about the actual processes of consciousness which are likely to occur.

My original discussion of near death experiences fits into this area, as a possible state of deep dreaming. Of course, we have no reason to think that everyone will have near death experiences at death, because all we have to go upon is those who did not die ultimately. But as a hint, of the possibility of such dream states we can indeed wonder about the questions of identity at death.
Would it be loss of the individual identity, as conveyed in the Hindu notion of Brahman(the person) merging into Atman(God consciousness), or perhaps now I am expressing myself too much in the language of the mystics.

But I am interested in what the person will encounter at death, and will it be the dissolution of identity as we know it? Am I wondering about the remnants of consciousness while lying buried in a coffin? I probably am, and I would also ask whether the experience of being buried would be different from that of cremation in terms of dissolution of consciousness and identity. I once read an argument in theosophy that aspects of the desire aspects of subtle bodies can be broken down more easily in cremations.

I am not sure if both you and I are talking in the same frame of reference and, as far as I know,I am not a panpsychist. But I am interested in the process of death, and do also take an interest in the whole burial process which took place in Egyptian culture in which death was seen as a journey.

Of course, I realise that we are in a scientific age and the whole notion of afterlife speculation may be seen as part of our struggle to cope with the idea of death as our egoic wishes may be about wanting to live forever. But, even those who dismiss the idea of immortality totally, could consider the end processes of life, or perhaps they do not see it as worth thinking about at all.

That's interesting because most of the people in this debate are arguing against consciousness existing. Perhaps you could explain your view in a bit more detail as it may offer a new angle.

When you say that identities change, but nothing happens to consciousness,' are you saying that it continues to exist?

I am glad that while you do not actually believe in life after death you do not claim such a definitive certainty as many others do. Some of those who are so certain of their truth that death is an absolute end seem to verge onto being defensive.

Okay, I will look at an old thread to see if there are any gems of wisdom. I know that The Opposite speaks highly of 'Sam', if it is the same person. But people are joining the site daily so I like to interact with these people rather than just read dead threads, or reply to comments by people who have not logged in for ages. But, it is worth looking in the archives, but part of the reason I do not do that too often is that if I find something wonderful I would not wish to commit plagiarism.

I am not convinced with any certainty that there is life after death but I know many people who have firm conviction that it is as real as this one. But these firm believers in life beyond death would probably would not be discussing the issue on a philosophy site at all, because from their point of view the matter is fixed too.

I am not sure that all birthday celebrations are just about having avoided death. This is one dimensions of birthday celebrations but not the only criteria. Important birthdays include age markers, such as the transition to adulthood.

Also, not everyone celebrates birthdays in the same way, if at all. I know some people who detest them because they don't like getting older.

I am sure that there are cultural differences in the way birthday are seen as well.

I appreciate what you are saying and I you are trying to be helpful and stop me wasting my time overthinking But, of course this site is meant to be about debating the questions of philosophy and not just about coming up with definitive answers, as provided in the name of science.

I don't think I have answered my question. On one hand I have seen the logic of the physical equation of death with the physical body. But I don't know if you read my exchange about my own psychedelic experimentation and the issue of reincarnation with Athena this afternoon. I don't think that there is a clear, definite answer.

I don't think that the problem can be set out in a number 1-5 point strategy as you try to do. I think that our knowledge is limited.

I believe that the Buddha was uncertain about the whole issue of life after death. Of course the Buddha did not write books and his thoughts have been interpreted differently by the various traditions.

You are a lover of paradoxes and perhaps the mystery of life after death is one, because we are left with the whole conundrum of whether the body gives rise to the mind or the body to the mind ? Which is the more real? The one thing which you are right about me is that I am the seeker and explorer, and I haven't stopped searching yet...