'River of Dreams' - Billy Joel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSq4B_zHqPM

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
From the mountains of faith
To the river so deep

I must be looking for something
Something sacred I lost
But the river is wide
And it's too hard to cross

Even though I know the river is wide
I walk down every evening and I stand on the shore
I try to cross to the opposite side
So I can finally find what I've been looking for

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the valley of fear
To a river so deep

I've been searching for something
Taken out of my soul
Something I'd never lose
Something somebody stole

I don't know why I go walking at night
But now I'm tired and I don't want to walk anymore
I hope it doesn't take the rest of my life
Until I find what it is I've been looking for

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the jungle of doubt
To the river so deep

I know I'm searching for something
Something so undefined
That it can only be seen
By the eyes of the blind
In the middle of the night

I go walkin' in the, in the middle of the
I go walkin' in the, in the middle of the
I go walkin' in the, in the middle of the
I go walkin' in the, in the middle of the

I'm not sure about a life after this
God knows I've never been a spiritual man
Baptized by the fire, I wade into the river
That is running to the promised land

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep

We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night

the end made me really question how I think about everything. — theUnexaminedMind

For example ?

If you're reading, read.
If you're eating, eat.
Pay attention and never ever
Judge a book by its cover...
And if you do
Don't be too hard on yourself
Or the other.
That's life.

Welcome to TPF, enjoy :cool:

:cool:

Trombone Shorty performs 'St. James Infirmary' at the White House

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSbP6ZhfPs0

There once were some fools from a bucket
Whose brains told 'em, dearies just fuck it
So they opened their head
Found nowt but sliced bread
They came all the same; please don't dough-t it.

SOCRATES (469-399 BCE)
Of smart know-it-alls there's a huge glut,
But they're dolts when you're down in a rut.
The one person to see
If your life's up a tree,
Is an ignorant pain in the ----.

WILLIAM OF OCKHAM (1288-1347)
I sing of the great Ockham’s razor,
That sharp philosophical laser.
A theory that’s bloated
Will fast be demoted,
And blasted with Captain Bill's phaser.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE (1844-1900)
“Thank God for eternal recurrence,
For endings I have an abhurrence.
I just love Groundhog Day,
When it’s done, press Replay,
Thank God for eternal recurrence."

“God is dead,” said Herr Nietzsche, “He’s toast.
He’s no more than an axed talk show host.
Though he sports a white beard,
And makes Christians afeard,
He's as dead as an ex-parrot's ghost."

AND ONE FINAL META-LIMERICK
That iambic pentameter’s cool,
Had to learn it in primary school.
But trimeter’s the best
When the foot’s anapest:
In great poetry limericks rule. — A History of Western Philosophy in 108 Limericks

https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/mindfulness-of-righteous-anger/

Mindfulness of Righteous Anger
by McGuire

Mindfully running for the bus and missing it anyway. 
Mindfully mistreating a cold caller with disproportionate contempt. 
Mindfully furious as the news unfolds. 
Mindfully shouting until you’re red in the face at the opposition. 
Mindfully arming yourself against injustice  
by doing nothing for a bit. 

Mindfully arguing for an hour and wanting to be right  
about something you don’t entirely understand yourself  
but you are too invested in now 
to be willing to concede anyway. 

Mindfully breaking suddenly in your car 
at a pedestrian walking out in front of you shouting:  
‘WATCH WHERE THE HELL YOU’RE GOING, IDIOT!’ 

Mindfully alarmed with the awareness 
that it is in your nature to die, have accidents and get ill. 
Mindfully alone, unbalanced and tear-filled. 
Mindfully slamming the door and deleting all accounts. 

Mindfully finished. 
Mindfully snapping the last straw. 
Mindfully to the bin with it all. 
Mindfully in a love hate relationship with dissatisfaction. 
Mindfully sitting with your eyes squeezed shut  
wishing to vanish the world away. 

Mindfully so had it with the world  
you’ll give this mindfulness malarkey a miss  
for an hour of screaming at the sky instead.  

Mindfulness of this.

https://www.scottishpoetrylibrary.org.uk/poem/wisdom-and-follies-haikus/

Wisdom and Follies Haikus
by George Bruce

Books – thousands – on shelves –
Wisdom of ages.
Folly if not in me

When two words do
for ten, then there is
the possibility of wisdom

When ten words set out
to do what two will do
then there is foolishness

More Swingrowers... :cool:

Swingrowers ft. Davide Shorty - LIVE electro swing - Healing Dance

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ojHHcBBHdJk

La Vie Parisienne: French Chansons From the 1930s & 40s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUKC5RAjUdg

Various Artists - La vie Parisienne. Released 2006-05-29 on Past Perfect
1. 00:00:00 Edith Piaf La Vie En Rose
2. 00:03:12 Charles Trenet Boum!
3. 00:05:49 Yves Montand Clopin-Clopant
4. 00:09:10 Josephine Baker Si J'etais Blanche
5. 00:11:57 Jean Sablon Rendez-Vous Sous La Pluie
6. 00:14:37 Maurice Chevalier Toi Et Moi
7. 00:17:36 QHCF Ultrafox
8. 00:20:59 Edith Piaf Monsieur Lenoble
9. 00:24:29 Tino Rossi J'attendrai
10. 00:27:27 Jean Sablon La Derniere Bergere
11. 00:30:33 Georges Ulmer Pigalle
12. 00:33:34 Yves Montand Les Feuilles Mortes (Autumn Leaves)
13. 00:37:05 Charles Trenet Les Retours Des Saisons
14. 00:40:19 Edith Piaf Les Amants De Paris
15. 00:43:35 Jean Sablon Un Baiser
16. 00:46:59 Tino Rossi Poème
17. 00:50:10 Charles Trenet Vous Etes Jolie
18. 00:52:30 Lucienne Boyer Parlez-Moi D'amour
19. 00:55:33 Reinhardt & Grappelli My Sweet
20. 00:58:34 Charles Trenet La Mer
21. 01:01:50 Yves Montand C'est Si Bon

Swingrowers - Via Con Me (It's Wonderful) - (Official Music Video) Rome in the 50s

'The video features a young Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck in the superb romantic comedy ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953) which features this memorable scene of an out of control Vespa in the streets of Rome.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vjU-EqwMSo

Norah Jones, Adele, Sade, Amy Wine House - Bossa Nova Jazz Cover of Popular Songs 2021 (1:18:49)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VlnyB9p4dg

'Zoom' - Fat Larry's Band

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMo6Ju8SJ8o

'A Whiter Shade of Pale' - Procol Harum - live with the Danish National Concert Orchestra and choir at Ledreborg Castle, Denmark, 2006.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOnYY9Mw2Fg

Ooops, here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St6jyEFe5WM

'Unchained Melody' - Righteous Brothers ( Bobby Hatfield solo) - Live 1965.
The Andy Williams Show - with intro chat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0EBs6uRgtw

Anything you care to add ? :chin:

I'm not sure serenity, contentment or happiness is at all compatible with whatever Nietzsche was advocating with such phrases as "Will to Power" and "The Overman." — Nils Loc

I don't know. Nietzsche's writings are beyond me. However, I suppose happiness like beauty can be in the eye of the beholder ? Interpretations of his works will no doubt included a mix of the subjective and objective.

It would've never occurred to me to call contemporary statue tippers iconoclasts but it fits with the original spirit of the term quite well. — Nils Loc

Yes, it does seem more like mob rule but somebody, somewhere has to set the ball in motion.
Is # tag activism better than philosophy as a way to raise, debate and change socio-political issues ?

They [Hashtags ] can be seen as a way to help or start a revolution by increasing the number of supporters from across the world who have not been in contact with the issue.[7] It allows people to discuss and comment around one hashtag. Hashtag activism is a way to expand the usage of communication and make it democratic in a way that everyone has a way to express their opinions.[7] Especially it provides an important platform for historically disenfranchised populations, enabling them to communicate, mobilize and advocate on topics less visible in mainstream media. — Hashtag activism

If one could imagine an alternative history where Socrates gave up his work (the public practice of Elenchus) to remain alive, would he remain the so called "father of Western philosophy". It's kind of a great mythic/legendary opening to the movement of Western philosophy — Nils Loc

I don't suppose I am alone in having imagined it. Nothing quite like a bit of (relatively) easy martyrdom.
At least Plato and Aristotle, the other 'fathers of Western philosophy', didn't meet such a fate.

There is a point beyond which philosophy, if it is not to lose face, must turn into something else: performance. It has to pass a test in a foreign land, a territory that’s not its own. For the ultimate testing of our philosophy takes place not in the sphere of strictly rational procedures (writing, teaching, lecturing), but elsewhere: in the fierce confrontation with death of the animal that we are.
— Costica Bradatan, NYT Opinionator: Philosophy as the Art of Dying

Philosophy as an Art of Dying by Costica Bradatan — Nils Loc

'Performance' - 'In the fierce confrontation of the animal we are'.
I like that. But my interpretation could be way out. And the link didn't work.

Philosophy where action or movement is both part and outcome of the critical thinking process.
But that is still a 'rational procedure' is it not ?
Being aware that our natural instincts underlie any rationality or superficial semblance of civilisation.
We can't kill them off - only manage to a certain extent.

It reminds me of the recent reading of 'Plato's Phaedo'.

'...Other people may well be unaware that all who actually engage in philosophy aright are practising nothing other than dying and being dead (64a)'

What are we to make of this startling and puzzling claim? — Fooloso4

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/534860

Philosophy:
'...It has to pass a test in a foreign land, a territory that’s not its own...' - Bradatan.

That reminded me of different cultures and the previous discussion re 'iconoclasts' and the tearing down of statues. A 'killing' if you like, perhaps more emotionally based - a violence against past or current culture and beliefs.
Perhaps another term could be 'iconoblasts' ?
I will never forget the blasting of the ancient Buddha sculptures by the Taliban in Afghanistan, 2001.

Humans being human ? The good, the bad and the ugly. Mad, bad and dangerous...?
Just like philosophy.

https://www.existentialcomics.com/comic/267
Hume and Avicenna

Avicenna, an 11th century Islamic philosopher, gave his "floating man" thought experiment to prove the existence of a soul, or a transcendent self. He asks us to imagine a person with no sensory experience at all:...
David Hume, six hundred years later, ran through basically the same thought experiment, but came to the opposite conclusion. That there was no such thing as a self without some experience attached to it:..

Thought experiment: what if we took other people's intuitions as seriously as our own? — existential comics: thought experiment

I am not sure about having original hypotheses or even if there was great future 'pay-off'.
— Amity

Iconoclasts! The movers and the shakers, any of those, can be condemned by the current era conservatives to uphold the status quo as a matter of faith or power. — Nils Loc

Iconoclasm (from Greek: εἰκών, eikṓn, 'figure, icon' + κλάω, kláō, 'to break') is the social belief in the importance of the destruction of icons and other images or monuments, most frequently for religious or political reasons. People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called iconoclasts, a term that has come to be figuratively applied to any individual who challenges "cherished beliefs or venerated institutions on the grounds that they are erroneous or pernicious."[4] — Wiki - Iconoclasm

A social belief or radical philosophy ?

Recently, some ?philosophical/political thinkers have resorted to action. It speaks louder than words.
Here is just one example: attacking historical figures who held unacceptable racist views.

The domino effect of the toppling of statues:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/04/toppled-edward-colston-statue-display-bristol-blm-protests-exhibition

The statue of the slave trader Edward Colston has gone on display in Bristol, almost a year to the day since it was dragged from its plinth by Black Lives Matter protesters and thrown into Bristol harbour.
Daubed with red and blue graffiti, and damaged so it can longer stand upright, the 19th-century bronze memorial has been displayed at the M Shed museum. Visitors will see it lying supine on a wooden stand alongside placards from the protest on 7 June 2020 and a timeline of events.

History in the making and on display.

2. Hume: https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/David_Hume_at_300

David Hume at 300
Howard Darmstadter looks at the life and legacy of the incendiary tercentenarian.
In 1734, David Hume, a bookish 23-year-old Scotsman, abandoned conventional career options and went off to France to Think Things Over. Living frugally and devoting himself to study and writing, he returned after three years with a hefty manuscript under his arm. Published in three volumes in 1739 –40 as A Treatise of Human Nature, it attracted little attention. Reflecting on the event near the end of his life, Hume joked that it “fell still-born from the press.”

The Religious Skeptic
Hume had become a religious skeptic in his teens, and remained so until he died. The manuscript for the Treatise originally contained a chapter, ‘Of Miracles’, which argued that “no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof.” [Again, see this issue.] Hume was prevailed upon to remove the chapter from the Treatise, but he included it in the first Enquiry. Hume’s initial hesitation is understandable: as recently as 1696, a young man had been executed in Edinburgh for blasphemy. Scotland last hanged a witch when Hume was seventeen.

Hume soon rallied, going on to enjoy a long and successful career as an historian and political essayist (the accomplishments for which he was best known in his lifetime) and as an important contributor to the infant science of economics.

Hume approached his own death with a cheerful calm that bordered on disinterest. A few months before his death, he composed a brief autobiography in which he described his situation:

“In spring 1775, I was struck with a disorder in my bowels, which at first gave me no alarm, but has since, as I apprehend it, become mortal and incurable. I now reckon upon a speedy dissolution. I have suffered very little pain from my disorder; and what is more strange, have, notwithstanding the great decline of my person, never suffered a moment’s abatement of my spirits; insomuch, that were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this later period. … It is difficult to be more detached from life than I am at present.”

David Hume, My Own Life, penultimate paragraph — Howard Darmstadter

I am not sure that he would be all that upset at the suggested removal of his statue or his name from academic buildings. His statue is of Hume portrayed as an ancient Greek philosopher.
No red and blue graffiti as far as I can tell - perhaps whiteness deposited by a passing pigeon.

“But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.” — 130 David Hume Quotes

It does make you wonder as to the legacy of a philosopher...if all that people remember are the negative aspects.

https://dailynous.com/2020/07/03/honor-hume-buildings-statues/

From the start of the new academic year the David Hume Tower will be known as 40 George Square…

The interim decision has been taken because of the sensitivities around asking students to use a building named after the 18th century philosopher whose comments on matters of race, though not uncommon at the time, rightly cause distress today...

Some have also urged the removal of the statue of David Hume from Edinburgh’s Royal Mile. The statue was erected in 1997 and is a popular attraction (and not just among traveling philosophers). — Justin Weinberg: Should We Continue to Honor Hume

If the wench doesn't drown, she's a witch, and therefore must be burned at the stake. — Nils Loc

Scotland last hanged a witch when Hume was seventeen.
Kinda puts things into perspective as to the times he lived in and the beliefs he challenged.
At risk to himself.

A divine voice directed me to Plato's Phaedrus where he or Socrates had something to say on madness :
'And we made four divisions of the divine madness, ascribing them to four gods, saying that prophecy was inspired by Apollo, the mystic madness by Dionysus, the poetic by the Muses, and the madness of love, inspired by Aphrodite and Eros, we said was the best. (265b)'.

Another voice :

Socrates’ great speech in the Phaedrus —the so-called ‘palinode’—begins with the somewhat shocking claim that ‘the greatest goods’ come from madness. Understood within the dramatic frame of the dialogue, the meaning of this claim is clear enough: the previous two speeches had argued that a beloved who is being wooed ought to prefer a non-lover to a lover, on the grounds that the ‘mad’ lover has no control over himself and is incapable of acting toward what is best.

Yet such a view directly contradicts the fact that Eros—being a god—can-not be the cause of anything bad; hence, Socrates must now recant his earlier disparagement of μανία [ manía ] and instead extol the virtues of madness. The palinode would then seem to be an elaboration and defense of this revaluation of madness.
In particular, the palinode seems to suggest that, in the best of circumstances, the madness of eros not only to an intense and beneficial interpersonal relationship but also to the highest kind of philosophical cognition. The apparent conclusion here is that there is a close relationship between philosophy and madness.

But just what is the nature of this relationship? Indeed, while the praise of madness might very well make sense as part of the dialogical-dramatic movement of the Phaedrus, it becomes problematic when set against the moral psychology of such dialogues as the Republic.
After all, the latter’s strong arguments in favor of rational self-control would seem to lead to an unequivocal rejection of any sort of ‘madness’ in the soul, and would hardly countenance madness as a part of philosophy. So is Plato seriously suggesting in the Phaedrus that the philosopher is ‘mad’? And if so, in what sense?

At least two responses are possible. First, there is what we might call the ‘literalist’ reading: the notion that, yes, the philosopher is literally mad, in the sense that he lacks complete rational self-control or self-awareness, and hence there are times when losing one’s mind or reason is a good thing.
Second—and diametrically opposed to the literalist reading—there is what we might call the ‘ironic’ reading: the notion that the philosopher is not ‘mad’ or ‘un-self-controlled’ in any way, and that any apparent suggestion to the contrary is made purely for rhetorical, dialogical, or ironic reasons.

What I wish to argue here is that—as is so often the case with Plato’s dialogues—the most plausible interpretation of the Phaedrus lies somewhere in between these two extremes.
To see that this is the case, we must be clear about how Plato is defining‘ madness’ in the first place. The speeches of the Phaedrus initially present us with two distinct types of madness: a human type involving an internal state of psychic disharmony, and a divine type involving possession by a god...
— Daniel Werner: Plato on Madness and Philosophy

The madness of 'philosophers' - having fun in the Lounge :cool:
Thanks @Tiberiusmoon for starting the discussion, inspiring some...

The internal voice (the Daimonion) that told Socrates no whenever he was about to do something wrong sounds far weirder than his method, which was probably more annoying than crazy. But maybe it's just a creative take on what we call the conscience (though one doesn't audibly hear it). — Nils Loc

When I first heard about Socrates' daimonion - an internal 'divine' voice - which guided him away from undertaking activities which might harm him, I wondered:

About whether it was intuition - that 'gut' feeling.
If he heard other voices which weren't discussed. Did he have auditory hallucinations - was he schizoid?
Why did he - or Plato - pay and draw attention to only that 'voice'.
What about the ones which would guide him to the good. The wise voice - perhaps based in passion for philosophy. As per the recent thread 'Plato's Phaedo', started by @Fooloso4
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540733

In the center of the dialogue Phaedo said that they had been “healed” of their distress and readiness to abandon argument. (89a) In other words, Socrates saved them from misologic,about which he said "there is no greater evil than hating arguments". (89d)

There is one other mention of illness. In the beginning when we are told that Plato was ill. We are not told the nature of the illness that kept him away, but we know he recovered. Perhaps he too was cured of misologic. Rather than giving up on philosophy he went on to make the “greatest music”. Misologic is at the center of the problem, framed by Plato’s illness and the offer to Asclepius. And perhaps conquering the greatest evil is in the end a good reason to regard this as a comedy rather than a tragedy. — Fooloso4

Perhaps, Plato could be on the mad list ? What kind of an illness or great passion did he 'suffer' from ?

I'd like an example of a crazy/insane philosopher. The heresiarchs of the old days, those who questioned institutional reality (Christian cosmogony) with original hypotheses were possibly insane/corrupt by the standards of the time, but there was great pay off for future generations — Nils Loc

I am not sure about having original hypotheses or even if there was great future 'pay-off'.
What I have often wondered about it are the effects of recurring physical illness as well as the mental condition of the thinker/author. Not just about how others judged them at the time but also what and how their real agenda was. Fear of persecution meant that ideas were cloaked.

How could a serious pessimist like that exist and ought you really call him a philosopher rather than a poet. Or is it a kind of poets play/humor that is detached from his character, an artistic salve/work for the condition he was in. — Nils Loc

Both can be part of the creative thinking process and character.
A philosophical poet or a poetic philosopher. Reading such 'madness' - a new way of thinking or expressing thoughts can be life changing for any individual. Perhaps for future generations...
Even if it were dismissed at the time.

I have read of some who during/after a short period of illness, a delirious fever, had come to a realisation or a solution to the problem they had been struggling with. What are the mechanisms at play here ?
Biochemical imbalance ?

Anyway - the philosophers that sprang to mind were those I have struggled with:
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
However, others I have read more easily.
Goethe seems to have had a mid-life crisis due to work-related stress and probable depression.
He took off on his Italian Journeys...

There are probably as many crazies in philosophy as the mad genius scientist.
Obsession or passion is not always a bad thing.
It seems I have some kind of a connection with Hume, other than being Scottish.

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/545020

What does it feel like to be pouring out such thoughts on a laptop at 02.16hrs ?
Bloody crazy. You know what I mean ?
— Amity

It's not dissimilar to what Hume thought about when he had a psychological breakdown:

"Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? ... I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty.

Most fortunately it happens, that since Reason is incapable of dispelling these clouds, Nature herself suffices to that purpose, and cures me of this philosophical melancholy and delirium, either by relaxing this bent of mind, or by some avocation, and lively impression of my senses, which obliterate all these chimeras. I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse, and am merry with my friends. And when, after three or four hours' amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear so cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”

There ya' go, Hume is No.4 on the list:
https://www.brainz.org/10-philosophers-who-were-mentally-disturbed/

10.Kierkegaard
5. Socrates
I. Top of the class >>>>

>>>> Nietzsche !

Just a quickie because I have a gardener coming at 10. ( clean version, honest, unless...)

At the moment we converse about Poirot, the lines between "fact" and "fiction" are blurred or even vanish. This, to most philosophers and psychiatrists, would be treated as confusion or delusional respectively. The question is, are they correct? — TheMadFool

Interesting thoughts and question.
I think most philosophers and psychiatrists ( unless quite mad themselves ) would know the difference between conversing about Poirot as a character - an illusion created by an author - and a delusion.
The only confusion or troublesome aspects would be when the character takes over your life in some extreme way. I think this is similar to those who follow soaps/films and identify the actor portraying e.g. a serial killer as actually being one.

The fact is that non/identification with a character is part and parcel of our own development when reading. This reality allows us to see from a different perspective, and so on...

This differs from academic literary criticism where - apparently - it was/is a taboo to talk about characters as if they are real. I am not sure this is correct:

We must not ask how many children Lady Macbeth had. We must not think of characters as “our friends for life,” or feel that they “remain as real to us as our familiar friends.” We must not talk about the “unconscious feelings of a character,” for that would be to fall into the “trap of the realistic fallacy.” — The Point mag: Literary criticism and the existential turn

I think the act of reading - like listening to music - like doing philosophy - is or can be an immediately satisfying first-hand experience. Unlike the step back - the distance - where a critical analysis takes place. Both are valuable...but yes, it can get a bit 'mad' at times.

Writing a novel whose characters can escape into the real world does feel “a bit like writing software,” Fernyhough continued. “Or laying a minefield for the heart. You want to shape how your readers think and feel – not in prescriptive ways that leave them no room to bring their own experiences and interpretations, but to allow them enter the minds of people they are not, and to have something of their experiences.”

Docx compared the characters whose voices get into readers’ heads to secret friends. “You wish you were great pals with Holden Caulfield, that you could sit around and trade wisecracks with him,” he said. “Obviously it’s a form of madness, but then all fiction is a form of madness.” — Guardian: Fictional characters - Experiential crossings

Gotta go now. Just hoping that my gardener doesn't think he is a 'Hannibal' of the Anthony Hopkins type.
"What's that you got in your hands - it looks sharp..." :scream:
"Not really" :naughty:

It doesn't matter much what the physical configuration of the person is, it matters that we conceive of them as being John (or Mary), etc. — Manuel

True.
What also matters is 'What does it feel like to be 'John, Mary, etc' ?

Following Nagel and his 'What is it like to be a bat ?'.
We can ask:
'What does it feel like to be a...'
...woman, man, laptop, AI robot...?

How do we know the reality...
or best ways to think of and what it means to be human or not-quite-human ?

How can we ever know that it is true when people talk of their 'Love' ?

How can linguistic analysis help; can philosophy of language help resolve these kinds of questions ?

We can look up a dictionary for definitions - is that enough to know the meaning of the feeling ?

I've just finished reading Kazuo Ishiguro's 'Klara and the Sun'.
Set in a futuristic world it explores questions related to the sentience of a non-human, Klara.
This is an AF, an 'artificial' friend...not a 'real' one ? What is it to be a Friend ?
How does one 'become' a friend ?

Other issues - the types of love, Klara's belief about the power of the Sun to heal, the feelings and consequences of being in a different class. Amongst the humans - the 'lifted' apparently being superior to those not.
Compare what it is to be 'gifted'. A natural or 'real' talent v artificial or 'unreal' perfection.
Isn't everything real in some way or another, even in fiction which might just become a future reality.

Linguistic analysis can't resolve this kind of a question - I don't think that is what it is about.
It helps in other ways to drill down on some philosophical density as in Austin's previous example.
Thanks to @Banno for recommending the article:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544398

When the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel announced impressively to one of Oxford’s philosophical clubs that human freedom was the ‘ontological counterweight to death’, Austin invited him to explain what he meant.
The request, made with his characteristic courtesy, was followed up repeatedly with appeals for further clarification.

Marcel ended up saying he meant that the fact we are going to die makes all our earthly doings ultimately futile, but we carry on in full awareness of this by investing some things with value by an exercise of free will. Was this true?
Maybe, maybe not, but at least that question could now be intelligibly posed. — Aeon essay on J.L. Austin

What does it feel like to be pouring out such thoughts on a laptop at 02.16hrs ?
Bloody crazy. You know what I mean ?

it's other purpose is to discuss the right way to do metaphysics
— Banno

Is there a 'right' way to 'do' metaphysics?
Is there an easy or a hard way...a 'just right' way..
Superficial or deep and wide-ranging...
https://www.wikihow.com/Study-Metaphysics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
What kind of metaphysics...
An SEP search - 1290 documents.
Feminist, Arab & Islamic, Chinese, Aristotle... — Amity

Reply to this from @Banno:

One response to what I've said is simply to ignore it. If that's what you want, go ahead. — Banno

Re: ignoring as a response choice. It is not one I chose. Indeed, the very opposite. I posted further responses which appear to have been ignored by yourself but not by @Manuel.

To ignore or not to ignore ? What, who or why ?
What does the act of ignoring signify ?
It is a nothing or something response.
A non-verbal speech-act, a positive communicative act...

How do we determine how 'ignoring' is to be interpreted ?
Possibly by context - previous experience or knowledge of the person.
How to react to someone's suggestion that if you don't like, ignore it...

It is hardly ever a case of 'simply' - ignoring has a bit more complexity.
It can have an effect on a person's self-respect. Depending.
That is sometimes what the ignorer wishes.
The silent treatment - words unspoken - can mean so much, or not.

On a forum, it is easy to miss a post, not to participate in an issue, or not communicate with a person for various reasons. Sometimes an apparent 'ignoring' is not worth losing any sleep over. Other times it can be worth pursuing.

My response to the questions raised by yourself and @Manuel was a positive one.
I engaged even though, or because, I had little to no knowledge in the issues.
And wanted to find out more.
I chose not to ignore. But you knew that.

Wittgenstein says this nicely: "A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably." This can be interpreted in many ways, I take it to mean that we should avoid being held captive if we do not proceed with the way we are phrasing and/or thinking about a question. — Manuel

Wittgenstein is another one I have trouble with.
However, I do appreciate this quote - very much - and would like to know more about it - source ?
It speaks to me of a way we are held - our minds fettered - by ourselves and not thinking outside our own bubble or experience of life.
A narrowness of sticking to a particular narrative, perhaps not of our own making. And not realising why or the potential consequences/implications.

Acceptance of repeated traditional ideas of what it means to be an X or Y. A reluctance to embrace the new as we evolve or progress. The difficulties of examining who we really are...and what we do about it...change or stay safe...how much freedom do we have...

From previous thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544094

Austin's Philosophical Papers.
Also,
How not to be a chucklehead — Banno

Grateful to @Banno for recommendations, as requested by @Tom Storm.

Given the critical role of language and definitions in ordinary discourse, I am not surprised that the context and usage of words can play such a critical role in managing apparent contradictions and ambiguities in narratives involving metaphysics.

Can you recommend an easy to understand essay or paper exploring the process you used above? I tried reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations but it is beyond me. — Tom Storm

The Aeon chucklehead article by Nakul Krishna, edited by Nigel Warburton is an easy read.
This excerpt - shows the benefit of repeating questions to clarify philosophical density:

When the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel announced impressively to one of Oxford’s philosophical clubs that human freedom was the ‘ontological counterweight to death’, Austin invited him to explain what he meant.
The request, made with his characteristic courtesy, was followed up repeatedly with appeals for further clarification.

Marcel ended up saying he meant that the fact we are going to die makes all our earthly doings ultimately futile, but we carry on in full awareness of this by investing some things with value by an exercise of free will. Was this true? Maybe, maybe not, but at least that question could now be intelligibly posed. — Aeon essay on J.L. Austin

My bolds.

Thinking about what we mean.

The point of me asking for a person to give an example of a metaphysical problem dissolving through language use and one which does not is simply to see if people are willing to point to one example in which analysis or clear use of words can put a problem to the side tends to show that philosophy of language can be useful. — Manuel

Philosophy of language useful ?
I had severe mental cramps when I briefly studied that many years ago. Fodor's L.O.T. Language of Thought ! I have avoided it just as much as metaphysics. Until now.
However...I will take this opportunity to explore again, from a different perspective.

Sticking with the Feminist theme, which I think can be broadened to issues of power, and control of minority groups. As related to metaphysical questions and concepts of identity and self in social experience. What our categorisations of reality are based on.

Fricker (2007) argues that there is a distinctive kind of injustice that has to do with the inability to properly understand and communicate important aspects of one’s social experience: she calls this hermeneutical injustice. According to Fricker, people in a position of marginalization are prevented from creating concepts, terms and other representational resources that could be used in order to conceptualize and understand their own experiences, especially those having to do with being in that position of marginalization. People in a position of power will tend to create concepts and linguistic representations that help to conceptualize the experiences and phenomena that matter to them, rather than the experiences and phenomena that matter the most to people in a position of marginalization — SEP: Feminist philosophy of language

Feminists like Spender and Catherine MacKinnon (1989) argue that male power over language has allowed them to create reality. This is partly due to the fact that our categorizations of reality inevitably depend on our social perspective: “there is no ungendered reality or ungendered perspective” (MacKinnon 1989: 114). Haslanger (1995) discusses this argument in detail. — As above

For me, this kind of discussion is useful to explore contemporary issues. Of practical concern.

I think it also relates to that perpendicular pronoun ...the I that he referred to:

I will be honest and admit that the 'another poster' is he whom this present member is in the habit of addressing with the perpendicular pronoun. — Banno

Although I thought the I in question was more laid back than that.
Would he prefer a 'we'...

All I ask is for two things: 1) what metaphysical problems do you think can be resolved by analyzing our language and 2) which metaphysical questions are actually substantive? — Manuel

It looks like a false dichotomy. A metaphysical problem could perhaps be *both* substantive *and* resolvable by analysing our language. — Cuthbert

Yes. Problems and questions related to identity and the nature of self come to mind.
I was intrigued to discover that there is a 'Feminist Metaphysics'.

It should thus not come as a surprise that there could be a specifically feminist metaphysics, where the question of prime importance is to what extent the central concepts and categories of metaphysics, in terms of which we make sense of our reality, could be value laden in ways that are particularly gendered.

In this way, feminist theorists have asked whether and, if so, to what extent our frameworks for understanding the world are distorting in ways that privilege men or masculinity. What, if anything, is eclipsed if we adopt an Aristotelian framework of substance and essence, or a Cartesian framework of immaterial souls present in material bodies ?
— SEP: Feminist Metaphysics

Value laden concepts need to carefully analysed as to real life implications.
The words we use - to make sense of current reality - often skew the way we think about and treat our selves and others.

So, both substantive questions and language analysis involved but as to any being dissolved or resolved...

it's other purpose is to discuss the right way to do metaphysics — Banno

Is there a 'right' way to 'do' metaphysics?
Is there an easy or a hard way...a 'just right' way..
Superficial or deep and wide-ranging...
https://www.wikihow.com/Study-Metaphysics
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
What kind of metaphysics...
An SEP search - 1290 documents.
Feminist, Arab & Islamic, Chinese, Aristotle...

This topic was prompted by another poster: to state it simply are there legitimate metaphysical questions as opposed to problems related to language use?
That is, is the long history of metaphysics one in which, by analysis of language use alone, we may dissolve such problems? — Manuel

It's not so much that there are no metaphysical issues, as that the problems we call metaphysical are characterised by conceptual confusions, and hence the path to dealing with them is in conceptual analysis with an eye to untying the knot of confusion — Banno

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544066

I try to avoid using "just"
— Manuel

It's a good indicator of something fishy going on. — Banno

That reminded me of Daniel Dennet's 'surely':

The “Surely” Klaxon

A “Klaxon” is a loud, electric horn—such as a car horn—an urgent warning. In this point, Dennett asks us to treat the word “surely” as a rhetorical warning sign that an author of an argumentative essay has stated an “ill-examined ‘truism’” without offering sufficient reason or evidence, hoping the reader will quickly agree and move on. While this is not always the case, writes Dennett, such verbiage often signals a weak point in an argument, since these words would not be necessary if the author, and reader, really could be “sure.” — Dennett: seven tools for critical thinking

Just saying...

Thanks.

Anyone help with further information ? — Amity

Never mind. I got an answer from @Jack Cummins:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543923

In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' - it acknowledges that it is not an either/or reality.
— Amity

Indeed. Theism or belief in a spiritual reality does not bring with it ipso facto superior virtues or capacities. — Tom Storm

Have another :up: from me, as well as from @180 Proof :smile:

it makes at appear as if one post is the correct answer. — Jack Cummins

Yes. That concerned me a little because I know you like to read all responses and respect people taking the time to offer up their thoughts.

Where is the function, anyway, and why did you use it ?

↪Fooloso4

I wasn't aware that of what you describe as the thread having come to a close. I was about to write a couple more replies but fell asleep. Are you thinking the thread so poor that it should stop, and I don't think you have expressed your view on reality yet? — Jack Cummins

Unfortunately, you misread @Fooloso4's post.
It was part of a follow-up to my response, which you might have missed:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543678

I hope that my question is not too vague to be seen as worth exploring, because I see it as central to all philosophical exploration.

Edit: I have changed title, to make it more a topic for philosophy reflection, because I was a bit surprised by how the topic was being explored. Of course, it may not alter any answer because the objective idea of reality may be the way you see it anyway.

View Answer — Jack Cummins

I haven't come across this 'View Answer' feature before, nor the 'Accepted Answer' you get when you click on it.
I've asked about it here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543805

But perhaps the answer would be clearer coming from you.
Where can I find the feature/function ? And why would you use it ?

Also, what was the original title ?

I'd buy this compilation album Rubber Dung . — 180 Proof

:cool:
I think we should hear them all !
I remember this well...even if was the 60s...
Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da - as sung by Marmalade ( with lyrics)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdkXxVl6PKs

Hey, happy ever after in the market place
Molly lets the children lend a hand
Desmond stays at home and does his pretty face
And in the evening, she's a singer with the band

Have just discovered a forum feature re 'View Answer' - in use here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11057/what-is-your-understanding-of-reality/p1

Edit: I have changed title, to make it more a topic for philosophy reflection, because I was a bit surprised by how the topic was being explored. Of course, it may not alter any answer because the objective idea of reality may be the way you see it anyway.

View Answer — Jack Cummins

The Question and current title: ' What is your understanding of 'reality' ?

When you click on it, it takes you to an 'Accepted answer':
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543738

Have never used this - so have no idea where it is.
Anyone help with further information ?

I recall in another forum you talking about Robert Solomon, maybe his "Spirituality for the Skeptic". — Fooloso4

Yes. I don't recall the book but I do remember the fun, fire and brimstone at PN.
You had to be there...how to become a target...whisper 'secular spirituality'.
Those were the days, my friend...never to be repeated.
Well not by me, not here. No way, no how :sparkle:

Waterloo Sunset - The Kinks
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N_MqfF0WBsU

A Whiter Shade of Pale - Procol Harum - live in Denmark, 2006.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=St6jyEFe5WM

(Sitting in sunshine. Appreciating blue sky - this came on Radio 2 )

It also seems to me that spiritual pursuits so often are a form of abstracted status seeking - all that talk of 'higher level' things - accessible only to special states or special people. It's like crass materialism has been sublimated into a type of crass higher consciousness virtue signalling. — Tom Storm

Quite often this is the case.
I have a friend who has taken courses in 'Spiritualism' and considers herself a medium.
Defined as: a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums.
This compares with the philosophical definition: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

When I asked her about how the training evaluates her as a spiritual communicator, gives accreditation for mediumship, she was evasive.
When I asked which people the students practised on and were assessed by, I was astounded when she said the students themselves !
Trying hard not to be overly critical, my sceptism was nevertheless easily divined.
In response, she proclaimed, '' It's not for everyone''.
True.
However, it made me think of what I called 'spiritual one-upmanship' - exclusive, only available to special people. Previously, she was a devout Catholic...in transitioning she argued with her husband that the 2 systems were compatible. Perhaps so...I wouldn't know...

Anyway, before posting this, I thought I'd better look up 'spiritual one-upmanship'.
Well, wouldn't you know - it can be a good thing.
'The Loving Art of Spiritual One-Upmanship':

He [ Jesus ] is teaching us the ultimate method of self-protection. Jesus is showing us how to get out of “even exchange” consciousness. He recommends spiritual one-upmanship—going to a spiritually more expansive understanding. Jesus advocates asserting our self-respect and dignity. When we “turn the other cheek,” we are realizing that we, not the other person, have the power. We are the one who has the choice. We are not subjugated. When we “turn the other cheek” in consciousness we discover that wise practical actions come to mind. — Unity Church, Austin

More critical of spiritual one-upmanship:

5 Ego Traps That Make Spiritual People Fall into Narrow-Mindedness
5 ways the ego can turn our intention to be spiritual people into something less wholesome. — Learning mind - ego traps

Sure, reality may consist of waves with discrete blobs of energy floating upon it... But at an important level this is insignificant to a life lived. — Tom Storm

Yes, for most this life lived is the reality.
It is navigating this while looking for a supportive belief system that can cause identity and relationship problems, over and above ordinary day-today-living.

Exploration in philosophy forums of what is 'spirituality' can leave some stone cold, others get all heated up. It seems if you hold a certain philosophical position you are not allowed a sense of spirituality.
If you are an atheist, then look out brother...

I find it ridiculous...this ongoing spat...which divides rather than accept people's reality is a combination of both matter and mind or spirit. But it is this spirit which keeps philosophy forums alive, or so it seems.
Good for exploration - not so good when attitudes become hostile and personally aggressive.

In another life, I discussed 'secular spirituality' - it acknowledges that it is not an either/or reality.
Haven't looked at the issue for so long - but found this:

Eight central attributes of secular spirituality can be identified: eclecticism, self-growth, relevance to life, self-direction, openness to wonder, authenticity beyond churches, metaphysical explanations, and communal and ecological morality. The persistence of both traditional and nontraditional forms of religiosity and spirituality should adjust the current popular views of secularism. — Robert C. Fuller

'Robert Fuller is Professor of Religious Studies at Bradley University in Illinois. He has authored more than a dozen books on psychology and religion, religious history, and religion in the United States, including Religious Revolutionaries: The Rebels Who Reshaped American Religion and Spiritual, But Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America.'

After your reply, I am tempted to put the thread back in the main discussion chamber. I partly moved it because I am creating too many. It can be a bit addictive, but I do enjoy inventing them as I don't have many creative outlets at the moment. — Jack Cummins

Now, that's just one part of a reality.
Addiction... to TPF...and philosophy.