Yes, it is hard to get carried away on this philosophy forum. I probably say more about my personal life than many others, and after all, it is about philosophy.

It can be very addictive as well. I hear beeps on my phone in the night and sometimes get up to read comments coming through, because of course people are writing in different time zones. But, on some nights I have been awake reading comments and tired in the day. Saying that, I think that it is fantastic that we are able to communicate philosophy ideas with people from across the world. It allows for such diversity of discussion, because I am sure that we all have such different lives.

I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed.

But I was planning to do a bit more writing on the thread tomorrow and your latest post here will be a useful stimulus for me to reflect upon.

So, you have literal snakes in your life? I only have symbolic ones, and I live in an overcrowded area of South London. It is so busy in Tooting that you get pushed and shoved walking down the streets.

I am sure that our environment affects our thinking, and this goes back to the whole nature and nurture debate. I did not grow up in London though. I was in Bedford, the land of John Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', so perhaps that is how I began embarking on my own philosophy pilgrimage.

I am pleased that many people are engaging in the thread because I intended it to be a debate rather than one with me dominating it. I tired myself out writing responses to comments, but I hope to write something new in it tomorrow, providing that too many snakes do not manifest themselves in my life before then.

No, I was not thinking of one specific idea when I dreamt up this thread. I was just feeling daunted by the prospect of needing to be informed by the history of any idea that I think about.

I believe that what you are saying on the idea of the unconscious on a collective basis is consistent with Jung's own thinking on the matter.
In speaking of intuition he said that, 'Mystical experience is experiences of the archetypes.' However, there are ambiguities in his thinking, and part of this may be due to the way he divides experience into four categories: bodily sensations, rational thinking, emotions and, intuition. He believes that these are balanced different from person to person, with most people having one function which is distinctly inferior.

Moving away from Jung to the idea of intuitive knowledge, we can note that some philosophers have, such as Leibniz and Descartes have believed that we have certain ideas which are innate. So, these would override relativism.

I think that the main point you thought that it was worth me reflecting upon was the idea that, 'Every truth, in so far as it is true, is an absolute truth.' I guess that this makes sense in terms of how we all have our own perspective and each one's view at any given time is an absolute in the sense that it is the best that can be achieved. I think that reason I have always been uncertain is that I have always felt confronted by clashing truths.

I read an awful lot, which may be why that happens. Even as an adolescent, I spent loads of time in libraries, and many might have thought I was busy at my GCSE and A level studies, but I was reading all sorts of diverse topics and exposed my mind to all colliding perspectives. Also, I had a physics teacher who said that whatever else, he could say that he had looked at everything from all possible angles. I decided I wished to do that too.

Earlier today, I looked back and saw that someone fairly recently started a thread on the topic of whether there is any objective truth and I had never even logged into it. That was probably because on a subconscious level I am not convinced of any objective truth as such. That is why I raise the issue of cultural relativism. But, perhaps I should not keep looking too hard, but I do like to do my best to explore the different avenues of thought, ranging from the religious to the scientific, in order to develop the clearest thinking that I can.

I have to admit that I am struggling a bit in coming up with a response to your comment because I can see the validity of what you are saying. I can see that the idea of a collective unconscious is one which can be disputed.I don't think that the idea does in itself challenge relativism outrightly. That is because it is a source of symbolism and not necessarily a source of knowledge, but this is complicated.

The reason I am struggling with my answer is that I am aware it opens up such enormous areas of debate around the whole question of truth. The problem I see with the idea of the mystic quest is that to some extent it pushes aside philosophy and the rational search for answers, but of course myth goes into the realm of symbolism. I guess that is why many philosophers are inclined to avoid mythology and mysticism. But I am inclined to think that the more people search for solid foundations, especially in physics, the less certain everything is becoming.

So, please accept my remark as tentative and feel free to get back to me because it is an area for discussion. Also, perhaps others will join in because I am really just opening up areas for debate.

Every act in life involves some degree of risk. To say that preventing people from harm by not allowing them to exist is overloaded use of the word 'harm'. Speaking of the consent of non existent people is questionable. We could argue that by preventing them from existing we deny their capacity to make decisions, although I know what your answer is, as you argue that it is too late.

I am not saying this I have absolutely no sympathy with your beliefs about questions of bringing people into the world but the conclusions are two simple. We can find ways of transforming suffering. think it would be worth you going back to the original discussion by @Benkei because it gives a full description of the problems of the antinatalist view, and see if you can challenge that analysis.

Yes, I think that you make a very important point. The whole set of criteria: 'original, comprehensible, popular or accurate' are competitive ones and I don't think they could possibly be all achieved equally. I have to admit that I would rank accurate and comprehensible as the two top ones.

I would be tempted to say that accurate should be the most important but comprehensible is important in a sense or there is a danger of 'truth' becoming too esoteric. But, there again, perhaps that is what happens when philosophy is constructed into popular means of being written for everyday understanding. Perhaps the truth gets levelled down into being too comprehensible that the essence gets lost in the process.

And, in conceiving of ideas in this way I am not sure that 'original' is that important in the scheme of things. I am probably coming to that conclusion in my discussion thread on cultural relativism too, because I have really raised the whole question of what is truth?

The articles you linked me into about Joseph Campbell are interesting, and I am sure he has his limits but I think it is going too far to say that he is for children and 'that he is a practice rung on a practice ladder.' I am wondering which writers you would place higher up the ladder?

I think that his ideas do work most strongly in understanding personal psychology in literary narratives. However, our lives are composed of story and stories within stories so in that sense are relevant for understanding truth.

I will reply to the comment you made on truth later on, after I have replied to the one on the subject by Undercover Metaphysician. I have really raised the whole question of what is truth in my thread, as well as the debate on religion vs truth, and cultural relativism but perhaps, stripping back the surfaces, perhaps the main one is what is truth?

Perhaps what I am saying about antinatalism sounds like a sweeping statement and a bad argument. But the whole argument that life results in suffering and that this means that it would be better to have not been born at all is a bad argument. It has a lack of imaginative scope around the human response to suffering.

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.