Perhaps, intersubjectivity is based on underlying consensus, like the group mind. Even though in the post above, I have just argued for a importance of intuition, rationality is the clearest foundation for thinking. However, while the intersubjective ideas may be the stepping stones it may be that individual thinkers' originality and creativity are central to the way in the understanding of underlying thinking moves forward, or evolves.

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you, as I have been busy dealing with the practical uncertainties in life. I am not exaggerating, I found out yesterday that all the people in the house where I am living will have to find alternative accommodation by the middle of next month. So, I am a bit shaken up by this unexpected news.

The reason why I am mentioning it because it does tie in with your own one on intuition. When thrown into difficult situations, while reasoning is important, intuition is likely to play a large role, especially in decision making. Often, in difficult choices and, finding a viable way forward, I have found intuition to be extremely valuable.

While critical thinking relies on logical analysis, intuition seems to sometimes almost contain another kind of way of seeing, which almost cuts through some of conundrums of logic. Of course, it doesn't mean that all intuitions are going to be all knowing, but, there againn, neither are all rational arguments reliable, especially as there are often contradictory ones. It may not that learning the art of intuition, which may be about gut responses, is one which can be learned as a form of spontaneous thinking, in the face of that which is uncertain.

The question of objectivity is a difficult one because human life is comprised of different subjectivities. Even intersubjective aspects of thought may be based on consensus assumptions and may be limited. In a way, it may be difficult to know of objective truth ultimately because it is not possible to step outside of one's subjectivity, which is bound up with sentience. Much of what is seen as objective may be based on shared understanding as opposed to soliptist thinking.

I do appreciate living in the age where doubt and skepticism are openly expressed and valued. However, as a teenager; remember being told by religious friends that I I should not doubt religious 'truth', like doubting Thomas. But, after time and trespassing into different approaches to thought I could not hold on to 'blind faith', and maybe blind faith is a philosophical sin.

Risk may be important for making decisions personally and in aspects of life. It was part of the basis for thinking in the pandemic, in juggling and weighing up factors. When I was working in mental health care, policies and decisions about individuals was based on assessing risks. In particular, risks to self, especially suicide and risks to others, in the form of aggression or violence was central. It was not exact because no one knows an individual's innermost thoughts, but there were generic principles for this, especially based on a person's previous history of behaviour.

As I understand it, risk assessment is a widespread approach for decision, including risk assessments of building, such as in the events of fire. The approach of thinking about risks may be one of the most rational ways of thinking in the face of uncertainty.

With regard to the nature of seeking truth it may be that it is worth trying to find aspects of it, through epistemological and empirical knowledge rather than giving up. But, the acceptance of partiality of truth and knowledge may be important, not forgetting Socrates' 'I know nothing.' Paradoxically, the humility of lack of knowledge and certainty may be better than the arrogance of being too certain. It is possible that those who try to assert their certainty are trying to convince themselves of this, in order to hide or gloss over their doubts and uncertainties.

I am not really wishing to make any evaluations of mental states. If anything, I would see uncertainty as being one which calls for weighing up the nature of risks, for self and others, in choices being made. Thinking about risks is important but it is often imprecise because there are often many variables which come into play.

Yes, you make some fair points. Vulnerable groups probably need to be able to feel reassured that behaviour is not acceptable. The problem of moral relativism is that it can become a viewpoint which enables people to justify almost any behaviour. It is all reduced to the norms. When I was a student I had to write an essay on 'Is there anything which is absolutely wrong?' I found it a hard topic because cultural codes vary and situations vary. I concluded that there was probably nothing that was absolutely wrong, with the possible exception of murder and rape. However, thinking about it these are the extremes and it would be dangerous to think that cruelty and bullying, physically and emotionally, should not be criticised outrightly. Fortunately, there are laws and human rights and support organisations which point to specific harms caused. A philosophy which says that all is permissible would be the extreme of relativism and uncertainty stretched beyond all proportions.

I had a look at the link on fallbilism. I had not even heard the term before, and, from what was in the link it seems a fair point of view. I am not saying that I am completely in favour of postmodernism, partly because it can become so theoretical. I have known a few people who are really into reading postmodernism and it almost becomes a language of its own.

However, I have read some writings on it including some on how history is dependent on who wrote it, for example, if a text written by a white male it may come from a very different angle than if it was written from a black female. It does seem an approach which links the nature of understanding to context, including social and political factors.

As far as cultural relativism is concerned, it was probably one of my own starting point for querying religious beliefs, because they are so variable, making the idea of one being completely 'the ultimate truth'. However, cultural relativism can become a rather wishy washy perspective, with everything being reduced to culture. It still seems that trying to weigh up ideas according to their merits or falsehoods is important in the ongoing process of philosophical examination.

Probability is important but it is not an exact scenario, because nature and people are unpredictable. It would be foolish to say that prediction and probability are not important. Even without it being done in a mathematical or systematic way, each person is likely to think about outcomes and risks of actions. But, it uncertain, and, that may be what makes human decisions difficult, because it is not possible to know the outcomes, especially as there are so many variables, including other people's subjective choices.

Apart from the uncertainty of the future, so much of knowledge is open to question epistemological questioning In addition, there are biases in the construction and transmission of knowledge. As Berger and Luckmann argued, in 'The Social Construction of Reality', all aspects of knowledge is connected to individual and cultural meanings and values. This awareness may be part of the reason why doubt and skepticism arise in many people's thinking.

You are definitely right to say that no one person can know everything, which does suggest the limits and partiality of what one knows. Cultural relativism highlights the way in which worldviews differ, and postmodernism points to the way in which all viewpoints are constructions, depending on how meanings of those who construct them.

Truth is interrelated with certainty. The nature of truth as a philosophy concept has been called into question by Julian Baggini in his book exploring truth. He says that it is not simply about what the idea of truth means, but that there are different kinds of truth, including eternal ones, moral and psychological ones.

In relation to certainty it is about the criteria by which truths can be verified. However, it is probably not simply about what postmodernists have spoken of as the construction or deconstruction of history, and the past, but about the unknown of the future.

Some people are more inclined to doubt or not being certain than others. I remember at infant school that I didn't put up my hand to answer questions because I wasn't certain that I was right. Even now, I don't think that there is life after death but I am not certain. I suppose too much uncertainty in life is about ongoing risks and diving into sea even though it is not certain that this will not lead to drowning. Uncertainty can also lead to indecision and a constant weighing of pros and cons of any choice made.

When I wrote my post earlier I had not looked at the news and seen that Boris is resigning. I wondered why a thread on Boris had popped up, but it is dramatic and may be England with no potential effective leader is a metaphorical representation of Britain at the moment.
.

I just thought I would share my little story. When I was on the tube yesterday a man got on who looked so much Boris. When someone was reading a newspaper with Boris on the cover, I just couldn't resist saying,
'He looks a bit like you. Do you ever get taken for him?'
He told me that he often does and it seemed that at times he finds it rather difficult. But, he is slimmer and less a look alike than one who looks like Ed Sheeran.

The man discussed the mess of British politics and during the conversation I remembered that it is voting day, because it is a local election in London today. However, I am telling myself that I should go and vote but feel tempted not to do so because the various leaders don't see to represent much hope for change in any positive sense.

I guess that the nature of family resemblances in physical appearances and character points to the way the unique is replicated in some ways. The family member who I was compared with most is my grandfather, who I never met because he died 6 weeks before I was born. However, it is possible to see aspects of oneself in many relatives. It is interesting to think of the aspects beyond the physical and I have read some suggestions that aspects of what used to be considered 'junk DNA' may point to aspects of psychological life.

Being mistaken for someone else can make one question one's uniqueness and it can be interesting or funny. I have been mistaken for other people on a few occasions. Fairly recently, I came across a woman I worked with a few years ago and I stopped and began talking to her. Some of what she was asking me seemed a little strange, especially when she asked how I was getting on in the theatre and choir. I said that I wasn't in the theatre and can't sing. She looked puzzled and, then, she realised she was muddling me up with someone else she knew, and I am not sure who.

The idea of looking similar to someone else may be less unnerving than to being like the person on a deeper level. It could have been that in the scenario above the woman could have asked different questions and the issue of mistaken identity would not have even become apparent at all. One aspect of similarity must also be of identical twins. I know one and she pointed to the way people get so confused and people who who know the other come up to her all the time and how awkward it becomes.

Thanks for the links and I will look at them because it is likely that identity has been approached in varying ways because it is bound up with subjective experience.

The idea of personas may be open to question. It does depend on an idea of the artificiality of social construction. Perhaps, there is too much generalisation and too much emphasis on construction of self. What would it mean to go back to the idea of self, especially in the idea of authenticity? Would it mean burdening others with all the useless clutter of identity and its management, or is there a way beyond this of finding oneself authentically?

It is probably extremely complicated because on one hand, each person is developing a persona, based on the attempts to fit into the social order and understand oneself in a deeper way. R D Laing, spoke of the difference between the false and true self, in 'The Divided Self', where mixed social messages may occur. His work may have pointed to the problematic nature of the persona in relation to authenticity, but the external and internal aspects of self and personal identity may be extremely complex.

In some ways, ideas may be constructed socially and, im other ways subjectively. So, it may beg the question of subjectivity in relation to objectivity which may be one of the biggest problems in philosophy. Can the self be understood merely in relation to other selves, or in a cosmic, or metaphysical way? This may be bound up with the idea of subjectivity, especially how inner reality is connected to the outer aspects, as understood in the objective understanding of the self and subjectivity.

How do you see identity? I know that you have read widely, so I am interested to know how you see the relationship between the individual, social contexts and how each person understands and develops an understanding of unique identity in relation to aspects which may be far beyond their own sphere. To what extent is human identity a matter of social meanings, metaphysics, or the constructs which may lie in the understanding of the evolution of consciousness and the various ways of understanding the evolution of culture self and how this is based on human constructs and meanings?

It does seem that consciousness and identity are so complex. Part of it is related to the social aspects of identity, but it is also connected to the nature of being. A person may think of themselves socially, in terms of meanings which are constructed intersubjectively, but this also relates to how people understand who they are, metaphysically, as beings who exist and have evolved in the context of ideas of what it means to be a human being.

In answer to your post about identity security and even credit rating, identity may be changing in the digital age. One's self online may be becoming an important part of identity construction, including the interaction on sites as this. It may be like a stage of performance because what we write may be read by many not known to us in daily life. It is a kind of disembodied voice and identity.

Your question about human identity and artificial intelligence is the problematic area I see with the idea of creating a humanoid. A being without a childhood with all its experiences like going to school, and family life, playing would all be missing and these contribute so much to human identity and the autobiographical self.

I am not sure to what extent Maths is the best help. There may be parts of us but I am not sure that 1+1= 2 in terms of human identity. Psychological truth is far more complex because it involves personal and social meanings. In that respect, I am arguing that the nature of identity may not be quantitative but about quality.

You are right about convictions being based on unique fingerprints. That is all about patterns. In the past, fortune tellers used to try to gather information on the basis of lines and patterns in the hand. I have extremely strange lines on my hands, especially the right one, with many branches, so I hope that they don't have any meaning...

1.Think consequences before actions
2. Value, respect people's needs
3. Examine conscience carefully always
4 Reasoned choice preventing suffering

I am getting a bit carried away with trying to define ethics in 4 words!

I am aware of strong links between childhood traumas and mental illness, not just from reading but talking to people, especially a couple of close friends. It may even go to the development of the brain itself and cognitive pathways. Also, the traumas or stress may have a negative effect psychologically in learning, including education and in the expression and understanding of emotions.

When people meet after say a 5 or 10 year time span of seeing one another it seems that some aspects will have changed and others not. It may be that some people change more than others, depending on critical life experiences, including fortune and misfortune. It probably does depend on what one wishes to see too.

Some people seem to change more in appearance than others and some of the changes to personality and outlook are subtle. Thinking of how one has changed personally is interesting too. I know that I was an anxious child but I am more rebellious than prior to adolescence. I would say that many of my own interests don't seem to change very much, such as art, reading and books. I have revised my ideas a fair amount.

Some people don't seem to alter their basic ideas in adulthood. It may depend whether people have reason to question and modify them. Attitudes can change a lot according to whether life has treated a person well or not, although it is likely that there is a biological or genetic component to mood, and factors relating to good or poor health probably come into this, as well as the socio-economic conditions which contribute to wellbeing or lack of it.

I have so little experience of knowing young children to know to what extent they appear as so unique. But, I can remember that when I was a child that the various children seemed unique at about age 4 or 5, although the years before that were likely to be great significance.

Another way of looking at it is that basic disposition and temperament, including whether one is sporty or artistic, and personality types may be draw certain experiences, which become the formative ones. All of this may happen in various stages and be cumulative in the shaping of a person. Of course, there are external events which may make a big impact, such as when a parent dies or leaves the family.

The idea of not being entangled with others subjectively seems very useful because it would be possible to not be able to step outside as an agent of perception. The sense of separation is part of this, especially the idea of the child being separate from the mother is meant to be a distinct development in children. The opposite to this development may be the difficulty finding connections with others, as seen in the various possibilities of those on the autistic spectrum. When I was doing some research on autism one main aspect identified was how theory of mind comes in. The people who are on the autistic spectrum can have great difficulty with empathy and imagining others' mental states. It may be that both seeing oneself alone and conceptualizing others' possible subjectivities are important for understanding.

Most people in the situation you are about to describe would remember their initial identity, although some people seem to remember so much more than others. I know someone who says that he can barely remember his experiences at university. I found that hard to believe but it seemed like he had just gone through the motions without paying attention. It may be that what is important to narrative identity is the thoughts and reflections because these are the fabric on which it is based in the internalisation process. I know that I remember most of my experiences from when I started school and before, but mainly in the form of the thoughts which I had.

There is also the opposite process, of selective amnesia. It is hard to know to what extent one has this because they may be buried in the subconscious. A couple of weeks ago, I met a woman who I had worked with in a couple of jobs. She remembered me straight away, but when I spoke about the second job she could not recall that I had worked there. She went on to say that she thought that she had blocked out all her memories of that job because she was unhappy there. I had not been happy there either but I can remember so much if it clearly. It seems strange to me to be able to block out such unpleasant memories and I was left wondering to what extent are people able to do this?

With the example of being the only person with blonde hair, it would affect a person but only as one aspect of many others. Such aspects as being even in a group and being the tallest, smallest or oldest are all significant. As it is, most people in many groups simultaneously, the first one being the family, which is likely to have a large consequence in shaping who one becomes. There are also those who are famous, such as singers, writers and footballers. Their experience could even lead to an inflated ego, or sense of being special.

It is all constructed subjectively, as you say. It is possible for there to be large discrepancies in how a person sees themselves to how they are seen by others. For instance, it is possible to feel ugly while being seen as attractive by others.

And, it is about the inner aspects of the self, going back to the 'I' of Descartes. That is about how one witnesses consciousness and is able to stand back and reflect. It is hard to imagine what it means to be another person, although, of course, people exchange their experiences and find common ground.

The culture of individualism was also important in the development of the sense of self. This may include all kinds of parts of life, including pursuing social markers of success and those through acquisitions. Social roles, like being married or divorced maybe crucial too. There are also the mythic aspects too, in the process of individuation. However, there may be opposite processes in the twentieth first century whereby individuals' identity are being diminished, with people being treated more as numbers.

With your thought experiment it may be that I, as the subject example would have many of the aspects of identity in tact, but some may change accordingly to the different experiences.

The reason why I say this is that it seems to me that aspects do change accordingly to perceptions of others. For example, I think that when I worked as psychiatric nurse, were different from now, when I don't have a job. I may even behave differently. One tutor I had spoke of how he behaved extremely differently when he was outside of work. He said that in the tutor role he was in his professional persona. I found his example a bit extreme, because when I worked it did not seem that I behaved entirely different on time off, except that I didn't share that much of my private life at work usually.

The way we are perceived by others affects us a lot. For example, I went through a stage of bad acne, which started before puberty and went on a long time. I did feel that I was shunned at times on account of it. This kind of aspect is described by Erving Goffman, in his book, 'Stigma', in which he speaks of how some noticable aspect of appearance can dominate social impressions.

The whole way a person appears can affect others' perceptions and a sense of personal identity. This may be the critical factor in the changes of adolescence. The core identity may remain though and memories. In the processes in older life, the life experiences and psychological, as well as aspects of the physical and social life may alter identity. As well, loss of memories in the various forms and stages may bring many changes in personal identity.

Having grown up in Christian culture(Roman Catholicism) I became aware of a split in the ideas about life after death. On one hand, there is the idea of the immortal soul, which seems to go back to Plato and Eastern traditions. On the other hand, there is the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world.

I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting. I know that some people have thought that the soul may continue until the end of the world. It would seem like many disembodied souls waiting to get their bodies back in glorified form, although some have suggested that the resurrection bodies would be spiritualised, rather than simply flesh and blood.It all seems a tangle of the mind-body problem.

One of the issues of art and skill is to do with social position and culture. Some people go to art schools to learn techniques and where one has studied may be as important too. The outsider art movement was important because it was about people who would in usual circumstances be excluded. However, it was only a fairly small movement, as folk art and it does seem that visual art is still elitist in many ways.

With other arts it is so variable with different segments. For example, someone trained in classical music may look down on the music of Oasis or Ed Sheeran, for example, but some may not. There is popular culture and so many genres and it is likely that each have different criteria for evaluating skills. It may be about guitar solos or songwriting, and also fashions within genres change so much. For example, there was the whole trend of English singers putting on an American accent, and the rough and ready aspects of punk and many music subcultures.

Even with fiction books there are so many different ways of thinking about skill and technique, with the tension between popular, the many specialist genres, as well as classical fiction and literary fiction. There may be a change in emphasis on technique and skill as more people are publishing their own work online.

But with the various arts techniques are bound up with different aspects of culture and with marketing. Some of it may be about techniques and some of it as snobbery value as well. Sometimes this may miss the creative processes and it is likely that many creative people never get well known. Then, there is the other extreme of Van Gogh, who was became an enigma after his death, like some musicians too, such as Hendrix. There is also what Todd Rundegrun called ' The Popular Tortured Artist Effect', and apart from art as creative expression there is also the arts therapies which focus more on the psychotherapeutic potential of art more than skill and technique.

One can be messed up with or without drugs. As I see it, drugs and intoxicants may enhance the basics of perception, experience and interpretation, for better or worse.

However, the other side to this is the way in which so many people take medication to drug out their mental states as well. I am not against this because I have worked in psychiatric hospital and have taken antidepressants myself. So much may come down to ideas of what is considered normal or 'messed up'. I remember meeting someone who said that a person without their medications is like seeing someone without their makeup on . An interesting analogy perhaps, in thinking about mental states induced artificially.

How much of biochemistry is about altered states? I never drank coffee until I took caffeine tablets to help me write essays. My biggest addiction is caffeine and I have it everyday as my basic mood stabilizer in the morning. Drugs may be seen as the taboo areas, whereas so many chemicals, ranging from caffeine, sugar and alcohol may be seen as the norm whereas hallucinogenics life cannabis may be viewed through the lens of criticism towards bohemian subversity.

I have mixed feelings about drug intoxication for creativity and enlightenment. I know that Buddhism and other systems advised against it. When I was a teenager I was so strongly against drugs and I certainly didn't drink at age 18, especially as I probably looked about 12. However, when the harsh lessons of life crashed in, I began experimenting with substances as part of the experimental quest. I have not stopped entirely.

It may be that drugs and intoxicants bring so much temptations and illusions that is hard to not get swept away into illusion and delusion. It may be that drugs bring a certain amount of 'enlightenment', but this can go in so many potential directions, including falling apart and having to put oneself together again. Addictions and many of the potential downfalls may be a precarious aspect of this, the left and the right side of evolution. Some may be rise to the heights whereas others may get destroyed in the process of travelling to shamanic upperworlds and underworlds. Perhaps, an essential factor is being aware of risks in chemical adventures.

You have asked an interesting question and it is fairly difficult because people vary so much. However, there may be some underlying aspects of human nature, or essential aspects of motivation. Maslow speaks of the hierarchy of needs which begin from physical to the social ones with the need for self-actualization as the highest ones. All these aspects may be linked to what a human being may become.

Part of the issue of what is essential to being human is the way in which life circumstances can bring out so many different aspects and education may be about cultivating the best possibilities. There is the question of nature and nurture as a questionable area with genetic determinants but what happens in early life may be extremely influential, as stressed by the child psychologists, including John Bowlby. The role of trauma may have a critical effects on core development of personality.

The process of becoming is a life long art, and what happens at any stage can either make or break a person. However, it may be that working on oneself, in spite of difficult life experiences, as the idea of 'the examined life's may be about reflection on the narrative of experience, as an important process of being human in a consciously aware way. This conscious awareness can be about becoming a person in a unique sense.

I am not sure about your idea of seeing 'metaphysics as the understanding of language'. All thinking is done in language, as the basis of forming concepts. Metaphysics is the process of this historically. Certainly, as time has gone on more knowledge is verified empirically, through science. Nevertheless, the grasping of concepts is still essential for understanding theories and thinking about empirical knowledge, so metaphysics is still important as the underlying foundation linked to language. Perhaps, both language and metaphysics can be juxtaposed effectively.

It seems that your post was your first on this forum. So, I welcome you to the forum. I hope that you find plenty of worthwhile discussion of ideas and I look forward to further interaction with you.

The idea of seeing 'natural science as the "search for the supernatural"' is an interesting construct. It may take some physicalists by surprise. The issue will be that there will always be gaps. When old ones close, new ones will emerge. It is a bit like the idea of the Waterboys' song, of seeking to see 'The Whole of the Moon'. I am not opposed to science though because self-correction is important. The idea of the natural supernatural is extremely different from making things up. Apart from causation the nature of rational thinking about the ideas and concepts which are used does seem to be essential.

It is possible that a lot of different meanings of many topics glosses over so much of the initial concepts within metaphysics. Terms like mind and body can be used differently even though, generally mind is taken to be the mental and body as the physical, because there isn't a clear division between the two, making it problematic to say that one caused the other to exist. So, metaphysics may involve some details of what ideas involve in their implications. The reflection on such meaning may give rise to deeper understanding and this kind of metaphysics which is more about reflections on conceptual aspects of thoughts may aid clearer understanding.

I am not sure that this kind of analysis would be opposed to the approach of Kant and Hume, who were the starting point of Murdoch's critique. Part of the essential problem may be the term metaphysics and what people associate with it because many may see it as an archaic term. The idea of looking at 'how we see' may be part of this way of thinking because the thoughts which a person has are based on consciousness itself, so cannot be separated from the meanings, even if they are shared by many.

It goes back to the idea of the observer role in perception, or even science, with the relative understandings implied. This does entail a certain amount of relativism and may mean that part of the problem of the gaps is because there is a perceptual element to any understanding of reality at all. It may be related to the idea of the multiverse or multidimensional because there are infinite ways of perceiving or understanding.
Each person sees differently and the individual's own perspective is in a process of changing all the time.

I do agree that metaphysics doesn't have to be a search for the 'supernatural' and that may be part of the problem, with it being seen as the attempt to find hidden meanings which are mythic. It may be that the problem is about concrete thinking in the first place rather than about understanding the interplay between causation and symbolic aspects of human thinking.