Your post raises the whole question of what is trivial and what is not in the understanding of life. The approach of the esoteric or exoteric may or not be important here, as it is such a wide area of exploration and interpretation.

My own slant on this was that my initial divergences from Catholicism were the more with esoteric thought as a way of going beyond literalism. Esotericism was also a way of going beyond the fundamentalism of many other religious ideas. I did begin to have many conversations with an atheist friend and could also the validity of thinking beyond God or spiritual perspectives, and my thinking does shift a lot.

The question of mysteries or philosophy as a game of chess is an interesting metaphorical question. Ancient thinkers often emphasised mysteries, going back to the development of Egyptian thinking and mystery schools. In the present time, the idea of mystery may seem strange. I probably do gravitate towards the idea of mystery, as I once wrote a thread on whether philosophical mysteries can be solved at all, focusing on the idea of God, life after death and free will. Such ideas are answered so subjectively because there is no proof. How much one sees mystery as a complete open arena for imagination or just a little bit of a gap may vary, and the tension between the esoteric and exoteric aspects of thinking. The esoteric traditions are more inclined to come from a contemplative approach, in line with the awe and wonder of the ancients. Chess as a game and art involves cleverness and the quality seen as smart thinking. However, there is a danger that it can become too superficial a matter of cleverness, or rhetoric. Most probably, my own perspective is that we need both awe and wonder and smartness for philosophy to be an in depth quest for understanding life. I am not wishing to suggest that your own approach is superficial as I know that you have read widely and in depth.

I guess that I see the area of the esoteric as an important area for getting to grips with essential recurrent themes. Of course, it is possible to skip over the division between the esoteric and exoteric, just as the differences between Western and Eastern thought don't have to be a specific point of focus.

As far as forum writing goes, it is so different from so many other forms. The reason why I have used this forum is because I find that the dialogue with so many people throughout the world makes it so good. When I was on academic courses, there was less, or a different kind of intensity. I never really achieved any clarity of thinking. I still find it hard to pin down a particular perspective above all, but I do find that, in conjunction with my own reading, engagement with TPF enables me to analyse my own thinking more critically.

The idea of the imminent may be about the present primarily; it may correspond with Eckart Tolle's argument about time, in which amidst the perception of past, present, and future, it is only possible that perceive in the present 'now' consciousness. Both ideas of past and future may be a potential for both romanticism and fear. The scope of eternity may also be seen as being about a static achievement while a sense of eternity as immanence may involve a contemplative picture of blending in with the endless aspects of life and its flow. It may be a way of seeing beyond desire itself.

I used the term 'esoterica', which is a rather vague one, as used in the magazine published by the Theosophical Society. But, in relation to your question of the esoteric as opposed to exoterica, it may come down to a different framework for philosophy. The esoteric is often based on spiritual teachings for development of disciples on a specific path. The exoteric, is in contrast, based on a set of teachings which are aimed at the social organisation.

The underlying difference is an emphasis or focus, which may raise more questions about the social construction of knowledge. It is likely that the people who see themselves as the initiates or disciples see the ideas as being more about a quest or way to 'truth', as a serious focus in life. When this is levelled down to the esoteric it probably gets watered down to a structure for social conventions and norms.

In relation to this thread, it may come down to examining the validity of ideas and themes in the esoteric traditions. There is still an interest in the esoteric in spirituality and religion. However, it is slightly separate from philosophy in some ways, which has followed the trends of academic science. Nevertheless, a lot of important ideas and developments had their roots in forms of esoteric traditions. So, it may be whether Western and Eastern esoteric traditions has anything important and significant for thinking in the Twentieth first century for the scope of the philosophical imagination or not?

Regarding the idea of the whole and the parts, it may be a mixed issue. To go beyond academic thinkers it is a bit like the song by the Waterboys of seeing, 'The Whole of the Moon', which may be symbolic of the issue. In esotericism, patterns and correspondences, as in the pictures of astrology. It also involves the idea of the microcosm as a reflection of the microcosm, which goes back to the thinking of Plato.

As far as seeing the whole, this may be challenged by the idea of pluralism and the various viewpoints of the observers. Some may see there being a 'perfect' or attainment of perfection, but whether this exists objectively is open to dispute. Members of spiritual disciplines may believe in perfection but the idea of elitism is a particular issue. Certain thinkers may have seen their own view as 'superior', but it does raise questions about the politics of knowledge. In relation to esotericism, there may have been power elites who were able to maintain such positions. For example, in Catholicism, there was the power of the Vatican. In this way, the 'secret knowledge' may have maintained elitism, as opposed to those who lacked knowledge, which was more predominant when education was less accessible to those at the bottom of the hierarchies of power.

As far as fear comes in, fear operates in different subtle ways. It can lead to the acceptance of the norm, but it can be used as a political tool. There may have been an interplay, such as in the idea of the way in which ideas of heaven and hell were transmitted as being about everlasting reward or punishment rather than as mental states of bliss or agony.

I am sorry that I do not quote in my replies. It is because it does not seem possible on my particular model of phone. I would probably need to be able to connect it to a mouse, like on a laptop. Also, your answers are good insofar as they are detailed but make many varying points so I would probably feel I need to make more than one post to address them. Saying that, I hope that my posts don't come across as totally lacking, as I do see writing on a forum.as being different to fuller forms of writing. Some write extremely short replies and I tend towards neither extremes.

As far as Hegel and the idea of the imminent I think that there is an ambiguity in how he views it. In some ways, he leans towards naturalism but not in the way that most people do in the Twentieth First century and that is probably a reflection of his own historic context. He was leading the way in coming out of grand metaphysical dramas and schemes but was prior to the paradigm of current scientific thinking. In this, he was involved in a process of demystification but this picture was only just starting to appear. Since then, it has become far more prominent with so many shifts backwards and forwards in many ways.

Jaynes' theory is also important for thinking about psychosis itself because it also suggests that people heard voices. Even within psychiatry there is a recognition of differences between hallucinations and pseudo hallucinations.

At times, I have had pseudo hallucinations, such as on the borderline of sleep. However, when I experimented with LSD briefly I did hear literal.voices, which seemed to correspond with my own thoughts. It did make understanding between inner and outer experience very confusing.

It does seem to suggest a very deep neuropsychological basis for understanding of the nature of reality. It probably also connects with the ideas of Iain Gilchrist in 'The Master and the Emissary', which looks at hemispheres in conjunction with developments in thinking, including the history of philosophy itself.

The way you describe the difference between the Gnostics and Plotinus, demonstrates the divergences in esotericism. In particular, it points to the way in which attitudes to the body are viewed.

Many esoteric thinkers have been in favour of contemplation, meditation and going beyond the body' in the development of the spirit, especially the rejection of the 'higher' self rather than the 'lower' self. Gnosticism is a little different and tension over how the body and sexuality may be viewed. Similarly, tantric thinking has a very different approach here to some other Eastern esoteric schools of thinking.

This means that the esoteric traditions have many intricacies in connection with philosophy. Plotinus was a significant writer and his influence affected ideas within religious and philosophical thinking, and its complex interplay. There are probably so many crossovers, involving the transition of ideas crossculturally on an esoteric level as well as in organised religion.

It is possible that in everyday terms people often muddle the idea of esoteric and obscurity, even to the point where philosoph itself is seen as esoterica in comparison with what is seen as conventional logic or thinking. That in itself may make life idea of the esoteric in philosophy as a confusing area, a little outside of the main area of thinking about the nature of mind.

Also, because it combines issues of mind and consciousness with issues which could be seen as being the territory of the philosophy of religion, or transcendent reality, makes it complicated. Some of the writers on mysticism don't help this by the emphasis on going beyond language, because philosophy is involved with conceptual and linguistic understanding.

One of the books which I have found to be fairly helpful in this respect is 'Cosmic Consciousness', by Robert Bucke, because he writes case studies of certain individuals experiences, which includes many great creative individuals as opposed to framing it in a specifically religious or spiritual perspective.

The way in which you combine Hegel and the idea of Hegel is especially useful for considering the concept of the 'supernatural'. It may have led to so so much confusion about an 'out there' zone, separate from experience itself. It may elevate religious and spiritual experiences beyond the realms of nature.

If anything, some aspects of esotericism may seem to reinforce this, such as mysticism as being transcendent, as well as the idea of esotericism as being the 'special' experience of the 'elite' initiates, and detached from imminent experience, including numinous experiences.

When thinking of the concept of the supernatural, one book which I thought to be extremely important is Lyall Watson's, Supernature'. In this work, Watson sees the division between biological nature and so called 'supernatural ' experiences to be be problematic. He argues that sensory and extrasensory experiences may be misunderstood by trying to separate them from the understanding of nature and biology. The underlying idea being that the idea of the supernatural and magic itself may be unhelpful.

Going back to Hegel, in his writing, including his writing on the nature of mind and history, he may have been such an important thinker as seeing reality as imminent, as opposed to transcendent.

Your way of understanding 'concrete' is useful and important, and another approach which is particularly important in relation to esotericism is the understanding of the inner and outer aspects of life, including Jacob Boehme's thinking and other writers, like Meister Eckhart, who spoke of, 'Heaven and hell are within oneself and are to one another as nothing'. The idea of heaven and hell as inner experience are different from the conventional religious understanding of a spatio-temporal dimension in an afterlife, detached from the body.

Jonathan Black, in 'The Secret History of the World' makes reference to the idea of subjectivity and objectivity spoken of by Julian Jaynes in 'The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness'. Jaynes spoke of how at one stage of consciousness the division between the inner and outer was not clear, with so much being projected onto gods or God. This is very different from the state of present consciousness, in which the psychological dimension is understood and it is important for considering the nature of concrete thinking in which the differentiation of the inner and outer aspects are extremely blurred.

I guess that even the idea of concrete thinking has varying meanings and associations. I have come across it's used mainly in psychiatry, when referring to the most literalism of ideas. I am sure that your perspective works as well, in relation to the position of 'now' consciousness although time itself is so fluid a concept as change is constant. I am more inclined to view concreteness as taking ideas as af they are physical objects or less subject to evaluation.

My main understanding of its relation to esotericism is that ideas are taken as more fixed entities rather than being juggled and juxtaposed by individuals. So, I would see fluidity as opposed to concreteness as being about ideas as definitive, like Plato's idea of the forms as opposed to arising differently in specific contexts. There is probably an interplay, with the esotericism of Plato being about the 'eternal aspects of meaning, as opposed to the "now'. This may be the opposite of where you are coming from and from the basic paradigm of realism.

Generally, I see realism as being very different to esotericism in its claim to objectivity. Nevertheless, I guess that some esoteric thinkers, such as Plato would see the eternal basis of ideas and processes as aspects of objective 'truth'. That makes this whole area a tricky part of philosophical reasoning.

It may also depend on how different the idea of the exoteric and esoteric are and what they entail. The first person who made me aware of the distinction was a school religious studies teacher. However, he was one of the most conventional Catholic thinkers I came across, especially opposed to the validity of comparative religion. I remember him saying that the Buddha believed he was God and mistaken, which seemed to gloss over the nature of spiritual thinking entirely. The teacher was a rigid thinker but I did meet him once later and he had softened so much, speaking of 'how memories come and go', and with what appeared to be far less concrete thinking.

I am inclined to think that concrete thinking is the problem, especially in why people hold onto dogmas, of both religion and science. The exoteric may be about the shared, or intersubjective guidelines for thinking, whereas the esoteric may involve the mysterious nature or conundrums of personal consciousness and its evolution. Each of us is living with the outer boundaries of intersubjective consciousness, tailoring it to the way in which the dramas of life enfold uniquely.

The esoteric thinkers may focus more on the subjective aspects and deviations from cultural norms, especially the development of one's own perspective and signature in the grand scheme of philosophy. It may involve relativism but, with more of an emphasis on lived experience, especially looking beyond the surface of ideas.

In that sense, it is about the unique and individual quest for understanding life and its meaning. It probably goes beyond actual concrete ideas of the nature of 'spirituality' , in a rigid sense, to the mythic aspects of what it means to be human. Here, I am not suggesting that it falls into a framework of Jungian or mythic interpretation, as it may involve the widest aspects of cultural interpretation, and anthropological perspectives.

I wonder about the nature of doubt even though many have feared it. I was brought up to doubt, but I committed the sin of being the doubting Thomas or whatever guise. Where would philosophy stand without doubt and scepticism, as recognised by David Hume.

It is also important to think about desire in relation to esotericism. Some may see desire as a problem, including the basic perspective of Buddhism, which looks at desire as something to be overcome. However, desire may be a starting point for expanded awareness as William Blake argued, especially in 'The Marrriage of Heaven and Hell. Blake even wrote that the reason why Milton 'wrote in fetters' was "because he was part of the devil's party without knowing it'.

In other words, desire may be the opposition or 'demon', which gives rise to conflict in the first place, in the ongoing process of the evolution of consciousness.

Hegel is often seen as obscure and disregarded. However, his emphasis on 'spirit' in history may overcome the basic dualistic understanding inherent in ideas of mind and body; especially in relation to the idea of qualia and its relationship between science and materialism.

In some ways, Hegel may be esoteric, but going beyond the basics of spiritual understanding. Also, in that sense, Nietszche can be seen as esoteric, in the sense of going beyond conventional understanding. It may be that ideas of the 'esoteric' are too boxed into the categories of the challenge between religion and science as a black and white area of philosophical thinking, missing some blindspots, which may go outside of the conventions of metaphysics, into a more fluid picture of ideas.

The idea of 'nothing', especially in regard to 'something' is complicated because it combines the mathematical with the linguistic. At its basis, the mathematics of nothing is zero; but how it comes into play linguistically conceptually may be more complex. Maths may be part but not all of the basis for this.

It may not be mathematical but conceptual, such as suggested by Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness-. It spans the logistics of maths and ideas of meaning. So, I would say that the problem with this thread is to reduce it to a formula. 'Nothing' may not be a specific value, but an area of meaning and linguistics,which may go beyond logistics of mere binary divisions and thinking.

I also wonder about the ideas of Hegel on 'spirit' here. His understanding is not simply about the 'supernatural' as separate from the nature of experience itself, but as imminent in the evolution of consciousness on a collective and personal basis. It may be that mysticism itself was a problem because it tried to separate the nature of experience and reason as though they were different categories of knowledge and understanding.

Your ideas on fear may be particularly important because fear itself may be such an essential trigger for thinking and exploration. In itself, fear may have led to the nature of questioning religion, and its dogmas.

On a wider level, fear may evoke so much in thinking, especially the 'lazy approaches' of conventional thinking and logic. At times, this may be a useful basis for criticising the ideologies inherent in religious thinking. Alternatively, it may provoke some kind of response to materialism and its extreme rejection of the idea of 'spirit' itself, as a source of everything, whether it is considered to be 'God', or some other numinous force inherent in consciousness, especially human consciousness.

It does seem that some of us are more inclined to pursue the 'hidden path'. Many ways I do try to avoid it, but it keeps rearing its ugly head. In some ways, it may be better to live a mundane existence of treading the known pathways because the esoteric is a difficult path. It is almost like the 'shamanic call', although there is itself a certain grandiosity to some claims to a calling.

That is almost the opposite predicament to the way in which some people stumble upon the 'unknown' through the use of mind-altering substances. I have used them but only as a a means to understanding the nature of the 'doors of perception'. That is so different from people who are partying and using substances as a form of recreation. That may be why so many end up with drug-induced psychosis. It may involve an 'opening up' which is too dramatic, such as Gopi Krishna describes in his work on the 'kundalini serpent' which can be too overwhelming and lead to 'madness'.

A certain amount of humility is probably worth holding onto as well groundedness in realism. I love the work of Krishnamurti because he rejected the title of spiritual teacher, when that was projected upon him. Part of the reason why I raise the thread topic is because the questions of philosophy are sometimes seen as separate from the esoteric quest. Aldous Huxley was an important writer, including his work, 'The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell', as well as , 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

A fuzzing of it all may be problematic, but, at the same time some of the issues of philosophy have been approached by many thinkers and artistic people, so it may be an intricate area for thinking about, such as the quest for the symbolic 'philosophers stone', which, hopefully goes beyond the fantasy world of Harry Potter. Fantasy literature explores important themes, but it may lose connection with the basics of philosophy at times, if it becomes too speculative in the grand process of human imagination.

Your emphasis on fear of the unknown is interesting, especially in relation to logic. That is because scientific logic, including materialism may come from that angle, as once Christianity, especially Catholicism did in the past. The esoteric, or occult, was feared as taboo and still is in some religious circles. I found the section on the esoteric, paranormal and magic when I was about 12 years old. My family discouraged me from reading it and for a long time I did avoid it. Later, when I was exploring various philosophy ideas, including premonitions, some fairly evangelical thinking student friends were horrified, seeing such ideas as 'Satanic' lies.

On philosophy forums, there are so many divergent views but, in spite of it many are wary of it, as nonsensical lies often, opposed to science. So, there may be a crossover at times between scientific and religious fundamentalism. Fear may be the 'demon' lurking in the background and logic, or even commonsense may be the certainty which many wish to cling to.

I am not sure that a certain amount of common sense and trust in the empirical is not important to avoid confusion. I have worked with people with acute psychosis and have seen the grave dangers of getting carried away with 'delusions', such as belief in magical and psychic powers. So, it may be about holding onto a certain amount of critical 'realism', but also about juggling this with the limits of reason. Also, each person may come to this in a unique way based on personal experiences.

Yes, it probably says so much about Western culture and the nature of consumerism and shallowness. It all comes down to money and images for so many, to where it turns the initial ideas of esotericide upside down and inside out. It probably links with what Alice Bailey wrote as the problem of glamour.

It is not even just ideas of spirituality but the whole culture around the arts as well, including the industry around Van Gogh and Kurt Cobain, which is about the seductive images as commodities. It is so different from the 'hidden' experiences of the genuine pursuit. Many of the genuine seekers may be hidden in corners of libraries and in various isolated places. Even with the popular genres of mind, body and spirit and mindfulness in pop psychology it may mean that, in many ways, the esoteric will always remain esoteric, as 'rejected knowledge'.

Some people do seem to seek for 'enlightenment' or even the bliss of 'Nirvana' as an end. From my perspective, this is a rather narrow perspective because it shortcircuits the processes which may be as essential in learning, just as much as the moment of enlightenment. What is known as 'The Dweller on the Threshold', to quote a Van Morrison track, may be important and the understanding of suffering. Without the initial sense of sufferings the quest of the Buddha would not have the significance which it has.

The idea of initiation does seem essential to many forms of esoteric thinking, including both secret societies, like the Freemasons, as well as theosophy. The tradition which I am most familiar with is theosophy, especially the ideas of Blavatsky and Alice Bailey. These were also developed in a different direction by Benjamin Creme.

I spent some time reading Creme's writings, which were also about initiation through personal evolution through many lives. He also spoke of the coming of Maitreya, who was supposed to 'emerge' from the East End of London until Creme died in the middle of the last decade. Creme took many ideas literally, including the belief in a hierarchy of invisible Masters.

I did consider his literal perspective, but do wonder if a more symbolic interpretation is more useful, such as Rudolf Steiner's, idea of the cosmic Christ, rather than Maitreya as a specific person. However, I have attended transmission meditation workshops by Share international, the group founded by Creme and have found it the most helpful of all meditation practices. One idea, which I found interesting too was Creme's controversial suggestion that Jesus was only the Christ during his ministry, and he also saw parallels between Jesus as Christ and the Buddha. I believe that the Theosophical Society rejected the ideas of Creme but Share international continues on after Creme's death.

The idea of known unknowns from Socrates to Wittgenstein may be seen as a form of mysticism. The danger of 'woo' may be more connected with concrete thinking, especially in organised religious movements. For example, the esoteric tradition of Gnosticism looked at a more symbolic way of thinking than taught within mainstream Christian thinking.

The whole area of metaphorical thinking is so wide and expansive, as is speculation. It may be why some people are put off philosophy entirely. I have come across a few people who began studying philosophy and changed courses because they preferred facts. Of course, it may not come down to the esoteric, or hidden; because the outer aspects of 'reality' and life dramas are important. It may be about different layers of meaning and interpretation in thinking.

Metaphorical thinking may be such an important aspect of human thinking, especially in the use of language, with limits of logic in the scope of rational thinking. Images may colour so much of the scope and spectrum for imaginative thinking, drawing upon sensory experiences as opposed to the mere apparatus of logic..

I wonder to what extent ideas of the esoteric and exoteric are 'different'; such as in ideas of rebirth and resurrection of the dead. In particular, in ideas of rebirth, reincarnation and resurrection, it come down from to which parts of one's 'self' may continue in some other form. It involves an aspect of the esoteric, in the depths of what it means to be human, but, also, most likely in the outer representations, bodily and psychologically dramas arising in human life social life.

The whole area of myth, as stories unfolding in human life, is extremely important. Each person is living out mythic aspects of dramas, as as contributing to an ongoing understanding or such dramas as appreciated and developed in the arts.

As regards to the 'mystification' of ideas, an important area may have trying to bring mythos and logos together in a compatible way.

My understanding is the way in which ideas may come into play would be in the archetypal aspects of life, including the interplay between life and death, and symbolic dramas, involving the conundrums of light and dark gender opposites and the whole interplay of dualities and symbolic or mythical aspects which arise in human existence and experience.

The ideas of David Hume and Hume's fork may be important for making rational sense of what may appear to be irrational. The idea of the exoteric and the esoteric are also important in thinking of causal explanations and ideas of meaning. The bridge between both aspects may be important, as well as the way in.which esoteric meaning may be involved subjective meaning, such as in.the understanding of dreams.

I am interested to read that Graham Hancock is a friend of yours, as I have read several books by him I have found them to be a rather different perspective of the origins of human civilisation. I am open to such perspectives and the biggest stumbling block of taking such ideas on board may be the 'scientific' premises of evidence-based research.

The idea of the esoteric, secrets and the hidden may be problematic, especially as it involves the mysterious and the unknown. In general, the unveiling of 'the unknown, may be more helpful as opposed to it remaining unknown. The idea of 'the hidden' in philosophy may be problematic, as if trying to go beyond 'gaps', but it may end up with obscurity rather than any meaningful explanabtions. In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding.

.

Metaphorical thinking may sometimes be dismissed at the cost of deeper understanding. Some may see the basics of logic as the most encompassing understanding, but it may lead to its questioning, and what are its limitations?

Just as an addition to.this area, I would say that it is worth questioning whether the idea of the idea of the esoteric implies a supernatural dimension or not? What are the central aspects of hidden knowledge and potential.'secret' aspects, including the political? To what extent does such areas of thought come down to the interplay of religious norms and the widest aspects of philosophy questioning of the nature of life and its conundrums?

In raising this topic, I am also wishing to raise the questionable area of what may be regarded as esoteric as opposed to mainstream. It may come down to what is popular or about politics, especially as the idea of the 'esoteric' implies a hidden, 'underground' or subversive approach or questioning of the ideas of the status quo, or mainstream, conventional commonplace thinking or radical.alternative perspectives.

@Wayfarer[/quote]

The one aspect which I wonder about so much is going beyond the idea of theism and atheism, and how this may stand in perspectives of reality. I came across this idea In the thinking of philosophy of thinking, and its freedom to thinking. There may be various ideas and ways of thinking, especially in terms of negative and positive ways of thinking..

So, in terms of this thread question, I am looking at both the ideas of optimisation and practical aspects of life.So much my comd down to adversity, and this battle against adversity and conflict may e so strong. It may come down to the nature of battling onwards. philosophically and down to.the basis of philosophical thinking.

Genarally, I see the area if you ideas of philosophy of hops and despair as an ongoing area of thinking.'about life and its dilemmas. I am.unsure but open to ideas which may go beyond the basic ideas and ideals of such possibilities. Its logistics how such ideas may be played out I'm the scenarios of life.


.
....

..





.

Agnostic atheism may he a means of labelling uncertainty or a,wider spectrum of being open to varying forms of understanding, based on reading and thinking of philosophy..My concern is that-agnostic atheism' dow not become a 'box', cut off from many varied ways of thinking about philosophy and human life..

The issue of human essence is particularly complicated, including the ideas of Simome de Beauvoir. Here, the nature of biology and ideas of the 'second sex' may come into play, as well.as her understanding of the ideas of Sartre, as her partner, may come into play.

These aspects of human essence and meaning may be of particular significance in the understanding of the nature of human meaning, in
its varied forms of philosophy.

The 'blind spot ' of science may come down to the means and reliability of scientific measurement. So much may come into play of the role of participant observer bias and meanings. The blind spot itself may be a gulf of void of unknowing, and it may in itself be an area for expansion of idea of possibilities in the development of ideas. The blimspots of vision and philosophical visio may be dismissed or attuned to, in the scope of understanding of perception.and its significance.
.

I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? So, I am left wondering about the limits and freedoms arising from both theism and atheism. How do you see both perspectives in thinking?

I am a bit perplexed about how the idea of automobiles may be seen in terms of philosophy. In some ways, it may be about practical ends, even with those who are unable to drive, for possible medical reasons, being seen as 'dysfunctional.'. I rely on public transport and walking. So, the worst possibility which I used in philosophy is of those who are not able to drive, for medical and other reasons, being discriminated against in a harsh way.

I travel on busses and am not sure how your philosophy adds up to such possibilities. One aspect which may be significant is the ecological aspects, and public as opposed to private transport may be important here..

Nevertheless, there are so many aspects of personal and public aspects of travel and transport, making it such an area of ethical concern, witn no simplistic conclusions. So, thinking about automobiles may involve juggling so much about life and travel in the material world and its consequent philosophy.