It is also important to know when uncovering brutal truths what ends we are serving, truth, the feeling of others or ourselves? Perhaps, then, is the time for the brutal truths, as we perceive them.
Hopefully our lives and those of others are not shrouded in lies altogether and if they really are what has led to the lies?
It is also difficult talking abstractly, because although the example of lying to a dying relative opened up a discussion all facets of personal and social deception have there only intricacies.
As far as the opening discussion was concerned, how much lying and self'disclosure in personal life was the starting point at least.
This starting point is good though, because how we approach issues in our life can be broadened to a wider ethical sphere. If we can be aware of the logic of our personal lives it may give us the logic to apply to social and political dilemmas, But this is only if we can look at each issue in itself without unhelpful generalisations.

The militant truth tellers can definitely be obnoxious and the worst to have involved in complex philosophical discussions, They often have such limited vision, distorting and curbing all genuine constructions and renditions of truth, which is about seeing beyond the facade of the limits of our own personal experience.

I thought that Philosophm' s response was an exaggerated response. My own mention of my father's mention of buying a place into heaven is in the context of my own questioning of Catholicism which I shielded, partly because I did not need at a time of deep personal exploration.
I am neither a complete atheist or believer in an afterlife and I neither conceal or deny this but just approach others spontaneously, but with regard to their beliefs.
I think that you have created an interesting area of debate and you may have paved the way for all kinds of exciting possibilities for discussion.

In my comment about saying nothing in precarious situations, I am not suggesting that we stand back like robots. Sometimes, empathy with the spirit of distress or hope can be communicated non verbally or otherwise.
I could not possibly think that you really envision the atheist portraying his beliefs to a fantasised afterlife family reunion to a parent as they are about to die. Likewise, a pretence of belief in the afterlife by the atheist would most likely be a hollow sham, and probably appear fake and unconsoling.

Actually, my dad, before he died used to speak of buying a ticket into heaven. What could I say? Sometimes, when not knowing what to say in precarious situations, the best solution might be to say nothing.

How much do we disclose about ourselves and how much do others really wish to know? I frequently err on the side of not enough or too much. As someone with complex LGBTIQ issues I frequently stumble more when people expect us to be able to explain all by a tap of the switch on digital technology.
In daily life I have often been extremely honest about so many things and people have used my self- disclosed truths against me to their own ends.
What are the facts and truths about our own lives. How much is distortion of our own making or by what is projected onto us by others with their own truths and lies. Others perceived honest opinions can be the most condemning if we do not see that they perceive and judge to their own advantage.
Personal truth is a journey and while it is important to cast out self-deception, surely it is better for each individual to be tell his or own mythic story, choosing what facts to disclose and wish to omit in the spirit of creativity and truth, allowing others the freedom to do the same. Sometimes fiction is a the most free medium as it allows juxtaposition which tells the main truth which can be hidden amidst the trivia and chaos of fabrication and fact.

I agree with you that the best starting point in philosophical debate and persuasion is understanding another's state of mind and their knowledge.
So much comes down to the other's psychology. Sometimes it can seem like a lost battle if the person wishes to hold onto beliefs which they believe serve them well, including fixed ideas stemming from religious belief or ideas they were brought up to believe. In particular, sometimes arguing against various prejudices can be laborious. I have heard my mum trying to argue against racism with some of her friends, as they sit there not wanting to know.
When we are trying to give knowledge based food for questioning and reflection, it is also worth suggesting benefits of rethinking ideas. Also, understanding the other's perspective fully including the positives of the view leads to a deeper engagement.
Also, it is worth examining why we wish to challenge others' ideas in the first place, so that it does not become a mere exercise to blot out one's own uncertainty or a game about winning an argument.

Perhaps, in a sense, when the philosophers stand naked rather than veiled in layers of clothing they will come closer to levels of thought and truths which are not seen usually. It may make themselves and others feel uncomfortable but we may learn from lack of comfort. The harshest experiences can teach us so much, so perhaps we need to stand naked in the cold of winter.

Truth should not be limited to science. The arts are extremely important too, for capturing mythic and psychological truth. All thef fields of thought and the chorus of authors need to be embraced as raw source material for the philosophers.

I am not wishing to interrupt any discussion which is ongoing and would like to see it opened up.
I wonder if clothes are layers upon structures. Perhaps philosophers have clothes, which are the words and concepts they use to hide the naked materials of questions about the human condition.

Clothing provides us with protection from our
vulnerability, physically and psychologically, Independnt from our bodies and other people aesthetics, as well as the fragility of our emotions, as well as beyond heterosexuality and the binary of gender, this is central to rational philosophy. Philosophy, whether in favour of rational arguments or empirical cannot cast this aside without disregard for our fundamental humanity.

I read Amen's response to you yesterday and I was astounded by it, as the whole stance was one of passive aggressive.
Two weeks ago I was engaging with both of you in a discussion about Jung and Kant. I bowed out of this because I decided that my own gender issues were not an appropriate part of the debate you were having.
I do not wish to say too much because this a philosophy forum, but sex and sexuality is an undercurrent of all debates in life. So, all I will say is that perhaps it is better if we are clothed rather than naked philosophers. I disclosed too much in my initial posts, but above all, we have to remain clothed and be mindful as we dialogue in the fundamental philosophical debates.

I will try to have a read of Unamuno at some point. But sometimes I try not to dwell on fears too much, as if I get too negative I find it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I had difficulties at work in the last few years and I don't think my own anxieties helped. But of course I don't think denial helps so getting the right balance is important.
If I wish to switch off I like on my bed, listening to music. Sometimes I take my books and go out, finding corners to read my books. However, I do try to immerse myself in creative acts, art and writing, to try to transcend fear and make the best of life, which is a kind of alchemy.

There are many underlying issues related to being afraid of humanity and of course it is questionable whether being classed as wierd is in itself a bad thing. If you are implying that by being wierd is about difference, maybe conformity is not such a bad thing.
One main issue that I can see is that the pressures of life in the twenty first century are that the people are expected to juggle so many stresses and perform to such a great level. Life has become so fast and competitive.
I live in London and notice on a daily basis how inconsiderate of others people can be in fighting their own corners. Of course, we do need to stand up for ourselves but the way in which people bully and intimidate others often makes me want to hide away in a corner. I am indeed frightened about the way humanity is becoming, especially more so as individuals become more like robots. I would much rather be wierd, but do continue to seek out other wierd free spirits.

I can see your link between death and justice, especially the whole idea of capital punishment, although of course capital punishment does not happen in this country.
Apart from capital punishment being viewed as unjust in many ways, such as the possibility that a verdict on someone may have been wrong I wonder if it's also linked to an erosion of belief in life after death. Perhaps there is an underlying idea that a life of remorse in prison is a greater punishment than the oblivion of death.

Sorry, I didn't press the arrow the above discussion was in response to you.

Surely, death is an equal event for everyone. All of us will die, some prematurely and even the richest die sometimes sooner than the most vulnerable.
Perhaps rather than bringing death into the matter, it would be better to explore equality with reference to life, rather than let death's angry face glaring at us, poke it's nose into the discussion about justice and equality in this life.

I agree that ,'Each day we wake up is not death' and in most cases it comes as a great relief. Our ancestors and each of us strive, probably instinctual, to stay alive.
Having created this strand I have to admit that I am afraid of death, but I am not sure that it is my biggest fear. I have plenty and I think the top one is becoming blind. But generally one interrelated question is whether death or a life which is truly unbearable. We can descend into our own hellish depths but while alive, in most cases we have some freedom to change outer and inner reality and overcome fear itself.

I am just saying in response to you that the healthcare I worked in was not private at all. The whole emphasis was on critical analysis of any deaths that did occur was mainly connected to managers' fear of the Care Commission inspections. The Care Commission reports were essential for funding.
Now, the Care Commission are floundering with Covid_19, but is it surprising that fear of death is subservient to money. Fear of death is abounding while austere measures are being taken in other aspects of society. Death may be quickened through poverty and homelessness.

In response to the issue of dementia I fear that terribly too, because I have worked with people with dementia and it made me so fearful of old age and infirmity.
I am aware that there is already a thread on euthanasia on this site already, but to my way of thinking it is extreme and subject to abuse for political ends.
However, while I think that euthanasia is an extreme but with some exceptions, such as with terminally I'll people who are suffering and wish to die, I think there is an opposite view pervading our culture. That is that life should be extended at all costs and this predominantly our current care system. Personally, I don't want to be kept alive on pots full of medication if I can barely remember my own name, cannot walk or even use the toilet myself.
But who knows whether I would say that if it really happened because I have seen people in extreme states of poor health who seem to cling to life very fiercely. Is it fear of death or the attachment to life in all its pain and glory?

Perhaps my use of the word should conjures up too much of a moral stance and I certainly never intended that. I chose the world fear because I believe that fear of death is so abundant at the moment, and this was explained in my earlier writing, if you read that rather than my response to someone else's statement.
I am not sure what asking about respecting death would mean. It sounds like something which would read in an equal opportunities policy. Also, my initial question was not really about fearing death in relation to suicide but about death which will face each one of us eventually.

It is dreadful when make abusive use of the fear of death to people who are feeling dreadful enough to want to commit suicide. I have a few people who did commit suicide and they were people who had wrestled with some of the issues of God's existence, heaven and hell etc. The people who exploit people's fears are more likely to contribute to the emotional pain which makes people feel suicidal.

and others
You mentioned a couple of authors I have not read, who look interesting. I will check them out, although we are a bit limited by libraries remain closed, and I just hope there is no further London lockdown as I don't think many of the bookshops would survive a second full blown lockdown. I do read e-books but do prefer paper books.
I originally started to this thread because there is such a fear of death pervading our culture. However, my initial quest about life after death began when I was a student and got the question 'Is there life after death ?' as an essay title and went on reading on this subject and my views have shifted at various times. I feel that it is the most essential question, perhaps more so than the existence of God, because from a personal perspective, it makes all the difference whether we have one earthly existence or an immortal life. If approached as a philosophical question rather than as part of an established body of religious teachings, it is a big puzzle because we cannot experience death directly.
We have the near death experience accounts but the individuals did not die completely, so they might indicate a possibility of an afterlife but they could have just been dream experiences. If they count for anything they do point to possible dimensions explored in The Tibetan Book of the Dead. However, the Tibetan tradition of Hinduism believed in reincarnation rather one life followed by an immortal existence.
Personally, I would prefer to think that we have many lives because it would give more opportunities for exploring life rather than the limits of one life. But I would not wish to believe it simply because I like it, as the truth is more important than what one would like. Also, there are complications to the idea, such as whether a person could come back as an animal sometimes or, having evolved to the human kingdom, would most likely come back in future lives as another human being.
Having been brought up in a Roman Catholic, and most of my friends are Christians, most of them believe in life after death but are rather vague about this. Within Christian theology there are 2 very different strands of thought: a belief in immortality which was derived from the founding fathers' reading of Plato, and a belief in a resurrection at the end of the world. These two ideas are not necessarily compatible with each other, but I have yet to meet a churchgoers who spends time worrying about this.
As it is, I don't want to spend my whole life pondering the mystery of life after death and not living this one as a result, but I do find it to be a fascinating question. I am not completely convinced that there is life after death but I think it is a possibility. In the meantime, perhaps life and death are two antagonists energies, as Petrichor drew upon, in Freud's suggestion of the conflict between Eros and Thanatos.

A final thought:
Part of the problem may be that in order for a proper study of parapsychology to happen the benefits of such studies would have to be shown. You obviously have an interest in the field to start the thread, but you do not actually state why you think it is important to consider. Also, do you think it falls within the realm of philosophy itself?

I think that the reason why psychic matters are not funded by universities is that many academics do not take such matters seriously. But of course some individuals, including governments do invest in the services of such people. But it is not usually out in the open.
Of course, psychic matters are often seen in the extreme end of the far out and weird, classified alongside thinkers like David Icke.
It is good to be sceptical about psychic matters and I think that Carl Jung is about the best starting point, the closest we have to any genuine psychology of parapsychology . In particular, his autobiography, Memories, Dreams and Reflections talks about his own premonitions. The way he links this with the idea of the collective unconscious is also important because it takes away a direct belief in the supernatural.
On a similar level I would recommend Lyall Watson's Supernatural because it provides a basis for understanding such experiences as part of nature and also Rupert Sheldrake gives a theoretical ground which would explain experiences such telepathy with his idea of morphic resonance.
Of course, you are really asking about the study of actual experiences. The real challenge would be for a trainee clinical psychologist to come up with a research study into this area and get it accepted. I once knew someone who managed to get involved in some MA research on this but I don't think it was in England.
As it is, psychology is often in service to the psychiatric profession and that affects funding. The big companies behind psychiatry are the drug companies and they are at the top of the hierarchy. The psychologists work alongside them and researchers of a cognitive behavioral therapy is ranked above all because it is cost-effective.
But I do believe that there are people within the profession of psychology who would welcome an exploration of the field of psychic phenomena, so in time it may happen.

Absolutely, perhaps we can reach and try to touch the shadows in Plato's cave. But of course we may have to descend to the underworld in this quest.
On a different level, but interconnected one, Aldous Huxley spoke about the quest for The Doors of Perception. This involved psychedelic substances. Many sought reality in this way. Jim Morrison tried to Break On Through to the Other Side, but ended up dying prematurely. Others have also ended up in tragic ends but this has always been the risks of the downside of the quest to go up, the shamanic path.

Yes, the quest for herd immunity is likely to take years and a vaccine may never be created. If more and more restrictions are placed on people indefinitely so many are going to suffer despair through severe poverty and mental illness. The whole emphasis is on protecting the vulnerable but endless more people are going to be made vulnerable, including many people under 50, and are likely to be vulnerable for the rest of their lives.
The government is giving endless guilt messages and threats as well threats of more threats. Surely, it would be more empowering if we were just told of risks and given the freedom to make informed choices about our own health and about protecting others. It might enable people to care more than imposing endless rules which are likely to create anger and a desire to break restrictions as far as they can without being fined.
It will be interesting to see what historians make of all the mess when they can view from hindsight. Will they think that people were too selfish for wanting to go about their daily lives or that the government chose to allow civilisation to collapse?

Surely, reason does not need to be about rigid attachment to certain beliefs. If we are too defensive it may be because we are not so certain of these beliefs
Emotions are inevitably bound up with our ideas and perhaps reason can aid us to disentangle the emotions as well as the ideas.
The opportunities of this site give a chance for an interchangeable of ideas which should help us to stand back from our the narrow confines of our own thoughts. We can reach out, explore and embrace the development of our own ideas and dialogue with other searching minds.

I do approach most things with scepticism, but I do continue to search and experience. I go to the Festival of Mind, Body and Spirit( now renamed Festival of Wellbeing.
I had a DNA activation (23 strands, as junk DNA is meant to contain hidden untapped potential) about 10 years ago and my own life became far more chaotic shortly afterwards, but that is my mythic truth. I still read all sorts of way out books.
But obviously the current situation with the pandemic and all the turbulence and turmoil created looms in front of us daily.There are no easy answers but we will have to wait and see what this brings for transformation of consciousness. Apart from that we have all the climate change and ecological concerns remain.

Yes, it would be so interesting to know what modern day psychiatrists would make of Socrates and other day thinkers. Would they Section Socrates and restrain him and give him a depot injection? A better option than sentence him to death?
I have worked in psychiatric care for 20 years and the perspective of doctors and many other professionals, with some exceptions, was flat and without imagination.
I can't help wondering what my managers and supervisors would have said if I had said to them that I was on a philosopher website, communication with characters going by the names of The Mad Fool, Unenlightened, Possibility and Noble Dust. I can only smile at their possible responses and remarks.

I do agree that the basic needs of all are a real time event. I think we are living in one of the most extraordinary times in history. I am sure that there have been pandemics before but the current one is a global one and would probably not have spread almost everywhere if travel was not international as it is today. As we are at such a strange point in time that I have been puzzled about how little link is being made between the present Covid_19 crisis and the eternal philosophical questions.
With regard to Masters we definitely need some prophets to guide us rather than just leave all the decisions to be made by the leaders. Scientists and health professionals are involved in discussions and seem to be regarded as the experts but perhaps philosophers have important ideas too.
On a more speculative level, in the New Age circles there has been an idea that we are progressing from the age of Pisces to Aquarius. This would involve major changes in consciousness over a long transitional period of time, starting with the changes in the 1960s. However, there was a belief that we were moving to ascension consciousness, in which large numbers of people would wake up to greater levels of consciousness. This came with an expectation of some mass catastrophic historical event. 1999 passed without the computers all collapsing, 2012 passed but perhaps the real apocalypse year, which people were no longer expecting, is 2020 and will it lead to major shifts multidimensional awareness?

'

I do agree that the fundamental basis is based on knowledge of oneself. This is the main problem with the selflessnes preached in some religious teachings. I was told by my parents and others to be selfless and I know that I made a lot of wrong choices based on this.
Also, with regard to empathy the particular basis of it is also founded on the ability to conceive of other people's minds. I did work with people on the autistic spectrum and read research in this area and one major idea was that people with autism have difficulty relating to others and lack empathy because they lack awareness of others' mental approach although I do think that this may well be due to deficiencies in ego development.

Perhaps it is just time to start a new post because philosophy is not meant to be a contest. In the game of philosophy there is no ultimate failure, apart from when philosophies are applied to the
matters of practical living but that is another matter entirely.

But you are probably best if you keep on this site as well if you want the fullest discussions rather than the most shallow. You can dip in and out of sites as you please to keep all your options open and you don't have to read the endless ones that keep coming up.
I have written a lot of responses in the Las week and I am sure that people are sick of my name. No one need read what I have to say at all but the site allows for expression and possible connections with other minds wrestling with certain ideas as they arise.

I agree with Mr Bee that it would cheapen the value of this site entirely. The beauty of the site is its freedom to keep the opportunities of discussion open. We can all see whether people wish to engage with us or take the hint and bow out of any thread we have opened.
By quantifying popularity the diversity of discussion would be lost entirely and if you are so against the freedom of this site perhaps you are best sticking to Reddit, if you are fearful of the scope for free expression of ideas.

Why do you think we should do counts? I am a fragile ego, affected by others opinions, but do you really think that a quantative approach and estimation of counting is a real manner of judging opinions.
I like people responding to me for dialogue to further my thinking and hopefully the thoughts of others, but in an ultimate sense what is the value of counts other than to massage the vanities of the ego?

Egoism needs to be balanced with compassion for others.
I am a great follower of Nietzsche as a creative artist but his application for ethics is very dodgy indeed and his views were used to support Nazi ends.
Egoism is important but if only one's own needs matter we are dancing in a fire of blind chaos.
I would recommend looking at the ideas of Peter Singer, who recommended looking at ethics from a circle looking outwards towards others, starting from the self, to those immediately in your circle, gradually coming to all other people, animals etc.
Of course you are welcome to any opinion regarding egoism but ultimately you may end up with a disregard of ethics and any compassion if this idea is followed through in its extremity

Yes,I would agree that Jesus and other masters, even if the idea of ascension is a myth, would certainly wish to help others as compassion was a central message of these teachings.

Have you tried moving in lockdown and its aftermath, with all the social distancing measures. I only had a bedsit with hardly any furniture but even though I had a van I did the move with a van but the driver did not come into the old room or the new one and I was left carrying the load.
Of course this could be seen as the weight of my clutter and I certainly don't want to go on about my issues. But I don't believe that I am the only person who has had such an experience.
Perhaps my personal experience offers an image
of the weight of the physical world which cannot be carried alone, in the upside down world of the pandemic all the complications arising from it. I began the telling of my move because I thought that The Mad Fool's image of the Porter has connotations of psychological baggage but also of sheer weight of the physical dimensions itself.

Most people don't pay for the service of psychiatrist in this country and often don't choose to see one. They are often referred and if they are not willing to have treatment they can end up being Sectioned. Psychotherapy is often costly but unlike prostitution you are can't just ask for your demands to be gratified and it is hard work. Perhaps there would be less need for people to need therapy if human beings could talk more openly to their families and friends.
I am not sure about your criticism of the actual point about people being able to carry luggage without assistance because carrying heavy loads can be difficult without the large trolleys porters have. Portering is a valuable profession and should be respected as such. For dyspraxic people like me who battle with the physical world a porter can save a lot of time and energy. But perhaps I need a therapist to guide me back from philosophy to being grounded in the physical world.