If you are against Freud can you come up with a philosophical argument against hm to back it up because views need to be based on critical analysis rather than mere subjective attitudes and dislikes.

You probably know a very different set of philosophers from, me although I did not realise you said 'ought' at first. Philosophers are not pop singers, but it is interesting and an entirely different debate: the sexual and romantic appeal of the philosopher?

I see that you have written lengthy essays and I have absolutely no issue with your ideas or even you contribute to my thread as I don't want it to die just yet.

However, right at the start you said that you are no fan of Freud and I don't have any problem with that or any of your discussion. I am just wondering if other threads would be helpful for you, especially as you have expressed an interest in Egyptian civilisation. I am interested in it too but not very knowledgeable but I would recommend a thread started by Gus Lamarch about the cradle of civilisation.

In the meantime I am quite happy if you continue writing in this thread if you wish to do so.

I entirely agree that regular fantasies are an indication of what is deep in the heart and I think that it is a separate topic from masturbation. I can see no logical basis for seeing why the fantasies of those who confess to masturbation should be any the worse than those who stay clear of it . If anything it seems to be connected to a belief about sin.

The whole issue of sin is rooted in Catholic religion, which has its own shadow, including abuse of others and the act of masturbation is free of this entirely.

I do agree that it may be better if people can have relationships with others. But I am not convinced that is the reality for so many. Perhaps I may be bombarded against this but I would be surprised if all the people, including philosophers, have found a relationship or have one at all.

We may dream of finding the perfect partner but in the meantime, especially in the time of the pandemic, I would argue that masturbation can be an ethically acceptable outlet, innocent and free, accepting of our own sexuality, heterosexual, gay, bisexual, with no intent of harm to any living beings.

Well, I am at King's Cross station, having travelled from Bedford, my hometown, also the birthplace of John Bunyan, on my way to Tooting..

While sitting on the train I thought that part of the argument which I had been making about symbolic dimensions I am not sure if I can answer directly in terms of your reply at this stage, because it all comes down to the limitations of words.

This relates back to the art psychotherapy course which I was doing which looked at images because art therapy is about art making. This basis of art therapy is about the level of visual processing in the brain and how in some cases healing can exist at that level, beyond the limits of words.

Saying that, while I am extremely interested in art and love drawing, I think that my own mental processing is mainly verbal. At one point when I was in clinical supervision on the art psychotherapy course my supervisor said to me, 'You are full of words,' and I think that is true because I love words but I am not sure that is true for all. Recently a friend said to me, 'But you can find the words to articulate about things you go through whereas I can't ', and this made me think that for many, processessing of thought is not always primarily verbal.

So, what I am saying is that there are depths of experience reality which are not always about words, the tool of the philosophers. But of course I am interested in philosophy and the dialogue with psychoanalysis and how this all fits together, including where sensory perceptions and logic collide. I have downloaded a book by Lewis Carroll called Symbolic Logic. This might interested coming from the author of Alice in Wonderland.

I will get back to reading your thread again and I see that you have written one on the The Myth of Sisyphus, a fascinating book.

However, I must admit that sometimes while using this site I find it too easy to write responses too quickly without giving thorough care to reading comments as mindfully as I should. I wonder if this is just me, because I am getting so used to texting. Or, I wonder if it is about how easy it is becoming to just tap in answers unlike the pen and paper approach to writing. I wonder if this is just me or other people write too instantly on mobile devices?

Hello, I am afraid I don't know how to connect links on my phone. The way I find things is by going to the part of the sight showing search. You would probably find it by typing in the word, 'cultural' but it may vary depending on what device you are using.

I have managed to see your reply despite wearing a mask and the train jogging a lot.

But I really do want to read what you wrote properly and also I am a bit distracted by the whole thread on the ethics of masturbation this morning.

I definitely don't think your ideas are the rankings of a lunatic, but all of us can get carried away. I am sure I get lost in tangents and loops.
I want to write the clearly as possible and avoid too many typing errors and incomplete sentences which do not help philosophy

In the meantime, I would say that being expected to wear face coverings as a norm does feel like a surreal, severe restrictions on human life.

I am on a train wearing a mask so I will only write a short response at present because the mask makes my glasses steam up. I will read your full response again later.

But the main point I wish to make for now is that the reason why I was writing about dreams is that Freud's whole approach and methodology was about dreams.

I think that the reality of life is that many people have not found the relationship which they would like to have. Rather than seek other alternatives including shallow sexual encounters or prostitution surely masturbated is a best option.

Masturbation avoids the problem of safe sex. Also, at the present time of the pandemic we are almost prohibited from meeting others so masturbation is about the only uncomplicated form of sexual expression left open.

I see that some people have spoken of fantasies while masturbating and I would say that it is likely that those fantasies would likely be experiences anyway. Surely life cannot be about regulating people's fantasies but about ensuring that they treat other people with respect and cause no harm to others. Any prohibited on fantasy life in itself would be about thought control.

All in all, I would argue that masturbation is about one of the only free ways of sexual expression in a broken and an increasingly coercive world. Surely it should be accepted rather than anyone being made to feel guilty about it. It is about acceptance of one's own body and sexuality. In this way, it can be seen as a spiritual act.

I don't mind if other people are not interested in philosophy but do mind if they criticise me for my interest.

Actually, I think I have always managed to find people to converse with about philosophical questions from when I was about 10 or 11 years old. Most of the various friends I have found who take an interest in the subject do not read books on that nature.

But generally I do feel that a lot of people are quite prejudiced against the pursuit of philosophy as a serious interest. I get comments from various people I know implying that I should be spending my time more productively. A lot of the criticism seems to be against it on the basis that it does not add much to life, especially in material terms.
But I am not going to worry too much about other people's prejudices.

Finally, I would say that while a lot of people cannot be bothered with philosophy it can spark off some interesting conversations with strangers. I have been out reading books, libraries or coffee shops and people have started up talking in response to some book I am reading. In most cases I never ever seen the person again but often remember the conversation forever more.

Thanks for your reply. I am pleased to say that I think that this current post has at least survived as far as puberty as it forms 2 pages now. I am grateful for your contributions and those of others in the last few days. At least it shows that Freud has not been dismissed and I am glad that people are thinking about his views about sex and life in general.

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown.

I think that the Oedipus complex makes sense in the grand scheme of mythology even if it does offend some people. I do believe that most myths and dreams can appear as ridiculous if taken out of the symbolic level.

The symbolism of myths and dreams do contain a level of relevance for understanding the battles which exist in our own life dramas, even though we often prefer to deny this. We like to believe that our own psychological issues are based on reason but the truth is probably very different.

I think that you are right to say that sex and death are two major themes of the inner life , but I do think that questions about religion too. The reason why I would say this beyond my own anxiety about religious questions is based on how religious materialism features so strongly in psychotic illness.

Regarding your comment about my suggestion that the philosopher's task is not to find ultimate answer to questions, I think that what I am saying is that I reject absolutist arguments in general. I am a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to know the full truth. I do see the various pictures or models of truth as relative in some ways. I think we are all entitled to our views and no one should claim that theirs is superior.

But extreme relativism is rather wishy washy and can end with absolute lack of commitment to any belief in particular. In that sense, I would argue more for pluralism in which the various models can be weighed up and slotted in to place, almost like the jigsaw puzzle metaphor which was created on another thread.

Bringing this back to where Freud fits in I would say that sometimes philosophers talk as if the world can be viewed in a straightforward logical matter. But I think that this is not true because reality contains symbolic truths arising from the unconscious.

I was impressed by your piece of writing and The Mad Fool's comments on it.

I am pondering your question about why you could not have come to your present conclusion at age 30.I think it is possible that if you had entered therapy your self understanding may have been speedier but there is only a possibility.


When I spoke of drowning in the sea of unconsciousness I was free associating in the playfully in the spirit of Freudian analysis.
However, I think it is possible to drown in the sea of unconsciousness. This happens when people become psychotic. There again, Freud did suggest that dreams are a psychosis we all experiences and of course the realm of dreams is central to Freud's thinking.

You mention going down to the pub as a direction you took and we could say that getting drunk is the most common means of drowning in the sea of unconscious. I have literally got lost a few times by going out to the pub as a reading venue and having a few too many drinks and getting lost, getting on the wrong bus home.

It is interesting when you say about the risks we take and how we look after ourselves. I sometimes think that my subconscious and ego play meaningful tricks on me, but almost with an underlying purpose but in analysing this I would draw upon Jung's ideas.

I will leave Jung alone for now having generated possible fictions about details of their meal together...But actually I think I remember the account a bit wrong and Freud did not swallow a fishbone but ate a fish meal and fainted. I will say no more about this obscure, surreal tale.

I am glad to see that you have joined into the thread discussion.

I believe that the significant of Freud for philosophy as well as philosophy cannot be ignored.

He is mostly talked about for his views on sexuality. These could be seen as sexist and the whole idea of the Oedipus complex is open to question. I would argue that despite the limitations of his view his thinking at least sparked off a lot of debate in this area.

I would suggest that the role of a thinker is not necessarily to come up with a completely coherent answer but to sketch out a panorama for questioning. I think Freud did this in many areas and that his writings such as Totem and Taboo, Civilisation and its Discontents, as well as Origins of the Uncanny were extremely unique pieces of writing with contributions to make to psychology, the philosophy of religion and many diverse fields of thinking.

I developed the thread because I think Freud's ideas, especially ideas such as the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, as well as his whole picture of the mind and unconscious processes is worthy material for philosophical debate.

I do feel that I am living part of an existential drama. I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore.

Perhaps I can get locked up in the Tower of London for my losing my reference to back up the argument about Freud swallowing a fishbone and blaming Jung for having a death wish against him.

I will bear in mind the possibility of links but I am not a big fan of them and rarely open them on other people's threads.

Really, my quest is about the territory of the imagination. I visited the Freud museum in Hampstead several years ago and that inspired me looking at Freud's desk and the statues he had of mythological figures. I think his journey was about mythical dimensions.

I will probably see what happens on this thread in the next couple of days but want to exist a bit in the physical world before London's second lockdown begins. I don't want to only exist in a room using my phone and do feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of lockdown because it seems that life as we know it is becoming part of the mythical past.

I am sure I never dreamt it up. I haven't had Freud and Jung in my dreams yet even though I do have some strange ones.

I will be wanting to find the evidence to check my own sanity, but it may be hard on the verge of a new lockdown because it was in a paper book.

I have committed a philosophical sin because I don't have the reference. I did the research for writing a piece for a creative non fiction writing course I was doing several years ago.

I had to get rid of piles of books when I moved earlier this year, so I am afraid it is unlikely that I have the book. Also, I discarded the piece I wrote as well and made a statement which I am unable to back up unfortunately, so I am sorry about this. But if I can find any useful clues I will get back to you.

I forgot to say that I completely agree with you that it is more important to find the right therapist rather than the right school of thought. When I was on an art psychotherapy course the therapist had to have a psychodynamic background and work with transference. In thinking about finding the right therapist some are lucky and find one straight away while some keep looking and can't find the person they are looking for. It makes it sound almost like looking to find a romantic partner.

reply="god must be atheist;467296"]
I think there are many other techniques. For expressing anger I have found metal, nu metal and emo harcore music helpful. I used to go and see loads of these bands play in Camden when I was at an angry stage of life, although live music is not happening at present. I even meditated to metal music at one stage.

If I am wound up and I often play music in bed and I meditate to dance and psychedelic music, with headphones on if it is night.

I also recommend therapy if you can be referred for it or able to pay. I have just spoken in length about this on my Sigmund Freud thread. If you have good friends hopefully they will listen. Some people love helplines. Personally, I have only made 2 calls to them in my life and did not feel they were wonderful.

Other options include writing, including journaling or other forms of creative expression. I am not sporty but some people find sport to be the ultimate way of expressing and relieving anger.

But, in concluding I would say while it is good to be aware of the options and choose what helps for you because we are all different. And of course there is the option of writing on this site to vent your feelings and opinions.

Yes, I believe that psychotherapy is very useful in the process of self understanding. I do believe that it is essential for self development as well therapeutic work. Counselling training as well as psychotherapy requires it but mental health nurse training does not and neither does cognitive behavioral therapy training. Psychiatric doctors don't have to have therapy but most do at least have some psychotherapy training when they are at registrar level, meaning that by the time they become consultants they will have this knowledge base to aid them in working with patients. I am speaking of the English system, so other countries may have different requirements.

There is too much emphasis on medication alone. Thorazine has been withdrawn for the last couple of decades in this country, as have many of the older antipsychotics. But, the newer drugs still have many side-effects, especially Clozapine. Many people are maintaining on a cocktail of medication, including antipsychotics and mood stabilizers and often experience a lot of weight gain and develop physical health problems, including type 2 diabetes.

Talk therapy is often encouraged but so much is about the recovery approach and about clear goals. I am not in any way opposed to this but do think therapies which involve deeper work involving examination of aspects of the subconscious is frowned upon by most mental health professionals. Of course, I realise that most people who are in the midst of an acute psychotic episode could not at this stage be expected to undertake psychoanalysis.

However, I would advocate for psychotherapy as a way of deeper understanding generally. I think the area of psychoanalysis and philosophy is fascinating. I do have an interest in the anti psychiatry tradition. Also, I am interested in the ideas of Lacan on psychoanalysis, but have not read much. But perhaps I will look for some paper books on this before England goes into a second lockdown.

The main thing I would say is that I don't believe that any tutor or professor could get away with calling a female student 'a castrating bitch' although you say he was your favourite so perhaps it was humour. Nevertheless, I think if it was said to many women who I know they would put in a letter of complaint. The professor might get disciplined or even dismissed for misconduct.

That is not to say that prejudice in all its forms has gone away. If anything, in this time of political correctness, prejudices are often expressed less directly but people may still feel the subtle effects of prejudice which is less overt and Freud's understanding of unconscious is a useful for thinking about the unspoken elements of interaction.

I started this discussion, not really with an intent to focus on Freud's to focus on his discussion of sexuality but of course this aspect of his writing cannot be side-stepped.

Personally I want to be reserved about discussing my own sexuality on this site because it is a public forum openly showing on the internet. I was surprised to find recently that when I googled my name all my posts and my picture were showing. I don't want to take the paranoid position but I am applying for jobs so I want to be a bit cautious. I know that I could create a pen name but I do not plan to at this stage because I have disclosed some personal information but it would be hard to find unless someone really wanted to read and read to find it. But I know that I have the option of creating a pen name and have even joked on another thread that I would choose Dr Dream. But for the time being I would rather reserve Dr Dream for a character in fiction projects.

Anyway, perhaps Freud's ideas on sexuality will be the way forward for this thread discussion. So far only a couple of people apart from you have commented on this thread so far, so I am hoping it does not die before it has even reached puberty. And, it may be a good thing if there was more discussion of sex on this site as it such a central part of life.

I can see Freud's weakness but enjoy reading his writings, so I dare'nt think how some may psychoanalyse me. Actually, I discovered a Primer in Freudian psychology in the library of my Roman Catholic school library, so his ideas were a liberating factor for me during adolescence.

I also did a course in art psychotherapy and this brought Freudian ideas to life. I think Freud's ideas are extremely important for psychotherapy as questions of religion and sexuality seem to figure strongly in mental illness, especially in psychotic breakdowns.

The ideas of Melanie Klein are interesting too from a psychoanalytic point of view. In particular, the ideas of splitting, projective identification, in addition to the concepts of the depressive and paranoid position.

While I was doing the art psychotherapy course I undertook personal therapy. My therapist was trained in Jungian psychotherapy. However, the therapy did incorporate some elements based on Freud's ideas. It included 50 minute sessions and four many of my sessions I lay on a couch. I found lying on the couch in therapy very wierd. I definitely think the therapy affected me permanently, mainly making me view life experiences differently and making me a bit more aware of my own blind spots.

Yes, the split between Freud and Jung is interesting. Apparently, it began when the two of them were eating a meal. Freud choked on a fishbone and accused Jung of having a death wish towards him.

Freud's disagreement with Jung's approach to religion was also involved. Also, some writers have suggested that there was racial disagreement between them, pointing to Jung's underlying prejudice against Jews.

I like the song!

I
I would demolish the sages and say that perhaps our words which can guide the future.

Perhaps we are amateurs but the world that we have known is crumbling.I miss libraries as a source of knowledge. I hope that they reopen, but one day, but for now perhaps the views proclaimed on websites, for better or worse.

I prefer paper books and real bodily humans talking but in the waves of uncertainty perhaps it will never happen, or for a while at least.

So, in the meantime, despite my sense of being a bit of a punk philosopher, perhaps we will have to be the best possible thinkers trying to make sense of it all, and as I said earlier today in another, perhaps for better or worse, as we are writing on an an official site we may end up being quoted for better or worse by philosophy students, as we are writing on an official website.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Many of us have been driven around the bend with people who have imposed their systems the so called name of truth.

Here I am ,trying to disentangle myself from the many layers of thinking and emotions,especially guilt, arising from oppression of those who claim authority on the basis of the faiths which they proclaim as ultimate and beyond questioning.

I hope that the scope of this website is forward
Perhaps we need to awaken more, with a real spirit of questioning rather than rest in the comforts of conventional thinking and logic with a view to moving into a future unknown, but different from the known certainties of the past.

Yes, I do agree ultimately. I do not consider myself as popular, but as a bit of an outsider.

If anything it is about survival. We live in a world of dog eat dog and a I have my own share of bullying and trying to resuscitate myself.

I would certainly not advocate a philosophy which elevates the popular. I do wish to advocate for many diverse and rejected philosophers. I believe that those most rejected can become the cornerstone as a Bob Marley track suggested and I would hate to think if Bob Marley was seen as below the level of the thinking of the philosophers, as in the most fundamental way he advocated the rights of all, beyond race, gender and all categories of exclusion.

One final remark, I am aware that Jung was attribute with racism against Jews and he had a certain amount of sexism too. This can be seen as a criticism of his work but is it to the point where his views should be rejected entirely?

The point I would make here is that I found meaningful in the writings of Ouspensky and passed a book onto him to a friend. I was dumbfounded when I discovered that my friend, who is gay, had latched onto a remark about homosexuality which I had barely noticed, and been thrown into an abyss of despair.

So, what I am saying is that the ideas of Freud, Jung and others have to be thrown into the cauldron of fire, juxtaposed with the relics of the Christian past as a way for a synthesis. This is a difficult endeavor with no easy answers and so returning to my thread discussion I would say simply that the ideas are a stepping stone for philosophical debate.

I do take on board your expression of Freud's sexism and the ideas of Eastern philosophy and I would welcome this kind of viewpoint as this was part of the debate I was hoping to spark. I am a fan of Freud but not to the point where I would override your concerns. This a key point of the issue of whether Freud can stand or fall.

I do not disagree and think that Freud and Jung drew upon the ideas of their time, but point to them as exponents of ideas about the unconscious. I certainly would not wish to dismiss those who paved the way for their work.

I think that Joseph Campbell is a long lost prophet but possibly too obscure for many on this site to understand.

I chose Freud as a pioneer because I think that he engaged with so many debates at the heart of philosophy, including religion and sexuality.

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy.

I am sorry if I did appear to have reacted to the book you read a bit prematurely. I believe I saw in WH Smith's at some point. When I come across a physical copy of it I will read it.

This is the first forum I have ever joined and I probably would not have done so if the pandemic had not occurred. I used to plod along to events like creative writing classes and this forum has become my new outlet.

I hope you are right in your belief that you are a genius because I think we need a few on this site and in the world.

Yes, I am glad to meet you on this site. I see that you have started a few conversations.I decided to dive in and write one on Freud.

The only thing is that this forum can be a bit addictive. I nearly missed getting off the bus because I was busy writing on my phone...

I will try to look up Searle's ideas. But I miss libraries so much as in England they have been shut since March. The Universities have reopened but not the libraries and if they never reopen I do fear the impact on philosophy if physical books become buried fossils of the past.

I disagree with the last comment you made. I think some people are put off by threads which leave a lot of scope for discussion but if anything I believe they can be used very creatively if used well.

I am extremely interested in the whole tradition of thinking stemming from Jung's ideas. This has given rise to the archetypal psychology of James Hillman. It also links in with ideas of Joseph Campbell, which have been useful for understanding the symbolic dimensions.

In relation to science, one writer who I would recommend, who I have not seen mentioned on this site so far is Rupert Sheldrake. He wrote from a biological point of view, coming up with a idea called morphic resonance, which was an inherent memory in nature, which links the processes of evolution with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious.

Anyway, I wish you all the best in developing threads. I think I have been the mistake of being too vague at times and it is useful to ask specific questions. I have been using the site for a couple of months and still learning not to get despondent. I feel that there are many writers on the site who prefer to shut down thinking rather than open up the most creative possibilities.

I have a few ideas for threads, including one on Freud and one on Jung's contribution to the understanding of the problem of evil. But I am trying to put a bit of thought into them so that they do not get dismissed and rejected in short responses of text babble.

I have just seen thalt I made an error. It was two other writers and not you who included videos.
So I apologise for that.

Actually, I do believe that putting videos by others as evidence and this is ultimate evidence and I question why they think that because someone has recorded something on video makes it anymore valid than anything we say...( You never know students might start quoting us as evidence because it is a recognised website, although names like Hippyhead might look odd in a list of essay references.)

But my point that you need to develop a solid argument if you want to dismiss the experience of near death accounts still holds, because so far I am not convinced of the logic of your views.

And in conclusion, I will say that I am not against the 'expert" opinions of psychiatrists but wish to question the experts.

I think that you are going to a ridiculous extreme in suggesting that we should be 'largely dismissing" the accounts of those who have the near death experiences because these stories are the raw material for discussion.

Getting back to the analogy of psychiatry and schizophrenia, you could ask if psychiatrists should stop listening to patients? Should the patients be sedated into silence.?

What you are saying about near death experiences does denote them into the purgatory of being labelled as delusions. Surely this is not a logic of philosophy but more an attitude, not backed up by sound and coherent argument.

You offered some references but did not appear to have engaged with the material in question. You offered a video of a psychiatrist arguing against them but to do so was no more evidence than offering a video of a person claiming to have had a near death experience. There are many psychiatrists with many opinions. Also, I have worked alongside psychiatrists and would not elevate them as having supreme monopoly on truth.

I am not wishing to dismiss your dismissal of near death experiences, but I do think that you need to explore arguments in a deeper way.

I do agree that the quest for truth is a goal rather than a static end to be achieved. I dare'nt think what the one truth to end all others would be if it could be found. Whose ends would it serve?

As it is we have the many viewpoints fighting to be heard amidst a chaotic world. We can search for those which seem more truthful and useful and hopefully see better ways of thinking. But if the world as we know it still exists at the end of this century perhaps the most en vogue thinkers will be seen as antideluvian because a whole new paradigm of perspective might have emerged from the depths of the gutter of the collapsing world.

I think that you are entirely correct in saying that repeated negative experiences and tragedy can disintegrate the will and this is the source of mental breakdown, including depression, bipolar effective disorder, psychosis and personality disorders.

Probably the variations mental disorders take is more than biochemical markers but also about the unique development of ego. In particular, there is so much of a recognised link between borderline personality disorder and trauma, to the point that it can be equated with post traumatic stress disorder.

Of course, the question is how can the broken, fragmented be repaired? The most conventional approaches are medication and I would most certainly not deny the importance of medication but I do not think that this will really solve the depths of the broken past and unfortunately individuals are being offered the cheapest, so called cost-effective ones. The trend at present is even computer packages of cognitive behavioral techniques.

Of course there are treatments involving psychotherapy, counselling and the arts psychotherapies. Unfortunately the referrals are lengthy and many find it hard to access the therapies unless they are able to pay and the costs are often beyond many people's means.

Personally, despite the so-called lack of evidence, my sympathies lie with the art therapies. I have seen individuals able to create new ways of seeing the past in visual art and creative writing.
And I would go one step further and recommend philosophical writing as a possible way forward. This is based on a view that many of the insights of the great philosophers were based on mental gymnastics in attempt at recreating the past.

This post is interesting but I think it is probably an old one resurrected. It managed to get me thinking.

It seems to me that the problem with the idea of faith is when it is used by others as an argument. As a psychologist construct, along with will it is a driving force for any motivation in life whatever system of belief we adhere to.

The problem is when people use the notion of faith to try and impose their system of beliefs on others. This can be done by religious and political believers, who wish to impose ideas on others. It comes down to wishing to coerce others into believing without questioning and this is very dangerous as it suggests that people should not question for themselves but have faith.

It can be a basis for indoctrination, especially in the young because it involves manipulating of emotions with the dismissal of appeals to reason.
In particular, one can be made to feel guilty for questioning.

I am inclined to think the use or misuse of the idea of faith in its intention of overriding rational questioning may stem from a subconscious certainty of belief in the person who introduces faith as a basis for argument.