Poetic Universe definitely wrote Part 1 and 2
Sam 26 the Wittgenstein one
I did wonder if Baden wrote 'Styx and Bubbles', but it could be hypericin. However, I think it could be I like sushi
Vera Mont, the Dante essay
The others I am not sure about... alt

A nice little reflection on human nature, an issue which can be explored from so many different angles. Here, historical examples are included. I felt that the present era was glossed over a bit too lightly, but that probably shows how understanding of human nature is so bound up with thinking about human meaning and theories in general.

One book which I I found extremely useful for thinking about human nature is 'Seven Theories of Human Nature', by Leslie Stevenson. It compares the approaches of Plato, Christianity, Freud, Marx, Lorenz, Skinner and Sartre. This choice of thinkers definitely doesn't have any female perspectives! It all shows the various partialities of any descriptions and understanding of what it means to be human.

Generally, I am impressed by the way this author writes in the form of poetry. I almost imagine him thinking in rhyme. For the purpose of this essay activity I do wonder if the writing should have been tailored a little. As it is, it is a little long and obscure, with some of the arguments becoming a little muddled or muddied through too much rhyming poetry. The patterns of rhyme almost seem to convey a picture of a clockwork, mechanistic universe.

The trouble is that thinking has been based around 'Silence of the Lambs' stereotypes of motivation. Lawyers may have once erred in the direction of presumptions that women who dressed in certain ways were asking for rape. The leaning may now have gone in the opposite direction, that all 'biological males', including those who wish to become women should be viewed as potential 'rapists'. Feminism was needed to alter fear and, now, it is a basis for generating authoritarian ideologies of fear.

It may appear as common sense, but it depends how far it goes. Some politicians have suggested always going by birth gender, which ends up with transmen who look completely male being expected to use women's toilets, which will upset women. It also means transwomen in male toilets. Okay, people say that there are unisex toilets but they aren't always available. It depends whether any flexibility and common sense will apply or simply rigid policies, which may occur within authoritarianism.

I found this to be a good theoretical examination of what I have seen happening in America and England.

One of the aspects which I do wonder about in relation to this is the backlash against transgender and I was interested that the author included mention of Judith Butler, who has written extensively on gender.

In America, Trump has been harsh in his fundamentalist approach towards trans individuals. Even though the essay doesn't look at England there has been a legal ruling against self-identification of gender. The full impact of this has not become clear but it seems to be in conjunction with monitoring of people's choice of public toilets. It seems to be ushering in an approach in which transgender people are expected to use the toilets of their birth gender, even if they have had biological treatments to change gender. In some cases, it does seem that individuals may have to use disabled/unisex facilities only, which makes them vulnerable to violent attack.

Of course, the trans toilets issue is just one aspect of increasing authoritarian measures and there is lack of clarity over how it is going to be monitored. There is also the question of whether people who are not even trans may be affected. That is because some people get misgendered or have their gender questioned who don't have gender identity issues at all.

In general, it does seem that since the time of the pandemic the liberty/authoritarian paradox has become more apparent. It is as if the restrictive rules to protect others have ushered in a speedy form of authoritarian compliance.

I am surprised that this well written essay has not received attention. It may be for the same reason as the one on 'The Insides and Outsides of Reality', that there is so much being discussed in other threads. It is rather unfortunate that a thread on 'the phenomenological basis was started shortly after this essay. If anything, this may point to the way in which stringing these essays alongside main threads may have weakened the reception of the essays so far.

Back to the essay, while I don't subscribe to materialism generally, I think that the essay is written so well that I do find the argument within it to be strongly supported and worth reflecting upon.

One main problem with this essay on the forum is that it is an area so hotly debated within philosophy. It is rather unfortunate that it is onsite while the thread on 'what is reality? is going so strongly. This may mean that hardly anyone will read it all, because that thread has grown so long. To say less or more about the idea of reality is the question?

An interesting piece of writing, which captures emotion and suffering. It draws upon notable philosophies and a sketch of personal experience in a way which creates a compelling existential essay.

The essay does argue for the importance of essays within philosophy. However, it does have a narrow scope as to what that may mean, based on guidance for academic philosophy essays. This leaves little scope for the most creative possibilities and such guidelines are likely to be a factor in the decline of philosophy essays in the first place.

I found this essay to be enjoyable and worthwhile to read. It reminds me of the worldview of Shakespeare, but it was interesting to read it in connection to the writing of Dante.

The essay brings literature and its history to the forefront of philosophy when so much seems to be focused on science. This essay stands out as being fairly unique, as Dante's ideas are not discussed much, if at all on TPF.

I agree with you ultimately. The fear of plagiarism may be too negative and, in a way, I would feel honoured by anything I say being selected to be plagiarized!

I guess that I have just been wondering about Feedspot ever since I have been getting emails from it. So, your clarification about it is helpful.

This is a distinctly creative piece of work, especially the combination of writing and art. Also, the crossover between fictional narrative makes philosophy accessible to a wider audience, like 'The Tao of Pooh'. It may also enable younger readers to think about philosophy.

Whoever the author is, I recommend working on this further with a view to publication. It may have an originality which will make it extremely successful, as a refreshing alternative to academic philosophy.

and others:
Personally, I am not concerned one way or another about whether the essays are public or not. There is just one aspect which I wish to draw people's attention to, I get emails about Feedspot, which links to a number of sites about threads on various sites, including TPF and Reddit. I found emails from Feedspot creating links to at least a couple of the TPF essays.

I am not a member of Feedspot and don't know what it involves exactly and how it links to various media sites. However, I am wondering about people who may have submitted to this writing activity, or even created threads, having their writing made accessible publically in such a way. If anything, I am concerned that it may give rise to plagiarism of TPF poster's ideas far more easily than previously.

As for the essays, I am wondering about the decision to make the writing public on the mere basis of one member having difficulty signing in currently. But; as I say it is not my personal concern, but the essays being made public on Feedspot is an issue which needs to be taken into consideration.

I am a bit overwhelmed by the essays but I am impressed by the overall quality. Your idea of the activity has certainly sparked some creative responses.

We are going to need a fair and of time to read, process and give feedback. Initially, I thought that having them on the the front page was good, but it is possible that some may get lost by being jumbled amongst a fast turnover of ongoing threads. Also, from the one which has received a reply, it is questionable whether it will be clear that they are part of an essay activity rather than new outposts by @Moliere.

Of course, people can find them by looking in the category of philosophy essays. It is hard to know whether having them in the main page will hinder or help gain readership. But I don't plan to go on about this too much, especially as it is an experimental activity. Also, based on the entry above mine, I am hoping that many regular users do not see the outposts as a mere intrusive nuisance! As it is, I just wish to focus on the essays and appreciate them for what they are.

Yes, 'One' would be great inspiration for a song as it is so philosophical. If my current essay doesn't out I may try it or another U2 song. Or, someone else may try one based on music by U2.

On a sadder note , one of my favourite singers, Mike Peters of the Alarm died this week. He was 66 and had chronic leukaemia for 30 years and it took on an aggressive form last year. A lot of people have not come across The Alarm, who were from Wales. They go back to the 80s era and were still performing but with a lot of different members and Mike. I have found The Alarm's music to be a big source of inspiration, comparable with early U2.

Stress gets in the way of writing sometimes, but I will try to chill out and hope that you do too. Music helps so much. What I am listening to at the moment is 'Songs of Surrender' by U2, which is a compilation of reworking of many of their songs.

It does seem sad that essays have been lost and that the completel anonymity has been compromised in the approach. I wonder how essays have been removed, because there is so much going on with data attacks etc.

I am hoping to submit still but fearful of the essay getting lost because I have to type it onto the pms directly, due to software problems. Actually, what I am writing is far from finished as I have been struggling with a lot of stress since coming out of hospital. I am hoping that what I am writing will come together sufficiently for me to submit. It is over 500 words but I don't wish it to be too long and get lost. I will give myself time until the closing date. If it gets lost on the system I will use my handwritten draft as a potential thread instead.

Let's hope that people who have submitted the missing essays are not too demoralised and have their work saved somewhere. It would be awful if this situation affects the competition. I hope that the problem doesn't come down to issues of submitting private emails because there is so much going on in the world with security concerns about the internet at the moment.

A lot of what is happening in Britain, and other parts of the world is about resources. There is some difference between the monetary figures of economics and how it translates into material resources. But, a large part of the problem is the way of life which Western civilisation has come to expect is unsustainable.

It is not simply about politicians trying to deprive people but about tough decisions in thinking about the future. The cost of the welfare state and NHS is tremendous but people are reliant upon it. So, what can be done is a conundrum. How to manage it fairly is difficult, especially in an age in which digital technology plays such a role. The basic needs of people for food, housing and essentials may get missed and it is likely that there is so much wastage of resources. There is a need for resources to be shared and it is likely that a need to go beyond capitalism and socialism needs to occur to address the nitty gritty economic realities which lie ahead.

How much allowance is made for people who can't do digital is so variable in public organisations. For example, I have heard of people who have been cut off from the benefits system as a result of losing a phone.

You seem extremely optimistic about any political agenda. I do not wish to be completely negative but see so much as being questionable. I see the need for people to be heard and fear that democracy is decreasing.

I am aware that you are writing from the USA. The versions we hear of news in both countries is likely to be filtered differently. This may be especially true at the present time where tensions between world leaders are extremely fraught. The relationship between Trump and Starmer is critical in this, especially with negotiations about Ukraine/Russia and Trump's tariffs.

I see what happens next as being fairly complex and may depend on who is involved or left out in the dialogues. It is with this intention that I wrote the thread, although it is likely that discussion here is of minimal significance in the power structures of political discourse.

There has been no talk of co-payment but what is starting to happen is in the form of inequalities, whether intentional or not.

In particular, many GPs require everything to be done on-line and requiring certain apps. Not everyone can access such resources or use them, especially the most vulnerable groups, meaning that they are in danger of being marginalised, or even excluded.

Also, GP appointments can be grabbed by the most healthy and denied to those who are most unwell. That is the likely reason why so many people are presenting at A and E departments. This will need to be addressed for effective change, as opposed to random community visits, which may ignore many less visible people.

As I see it, so much is being rushed through by the government. Such haste may be extremely disastrous and costly, leading to potential collapse of the NHS.

I am not opposed to change or restructuring in itself. However, what does seem to be happening is that the pace of changes does not allow for so much unpredictability and uncertainty in life. The NHS in England had been restructured and was making so many changes before the pandemic. After Covid hit, so much was hit by cost. That is the main reason why the NHS is in crisis. So much is intended to save money, especially job cuts. Also, without being negative it is hard to know what will happen with the plan for the government to have more direct control over decision making.

In addition, so much change, in the NHS and other organisations is focused around technology being introduced. The people involved in such organisations are being trained in technology and policy. What may be lacking is the value of human individuality in this. In particular, communication skills and listening may be lacking in such processes, especially as staff are so busy on machines and computers.

There was a thread on 'The Metaphysics of Poetry', started by @Gus Lamarch a few years ago, which you may find worth reading. I see the topic as important because it comes down to the nature of linguistics as evolutionaryhuman expression vs the idea of the qualia of ideas 'out there'.

One other area which I am slightly but not entirely familiar with is the way in which Wittgenstein's ideas have been developed as a basis for poetry. Generally, I see the dialogue between poets and philosophy as a fantastic area for exploring the nature of imagination. Also, it is likely that the philosophers can learn so much from poets and vice versa.

2
A sound bridge between rationality and emotive morality may be useful. That is because without the rational, we may end up with 'herd instinct'. Morality based on rationality or emotion alone may too narrow in scope.

I do not deny Nietzsche's argument or the issues of relativism. Nevertheless, what may be happening is a 'fashion' or slippery rope argument whereby the right to express hatred is being justified.

I see your argument as possible logical but questionable from a deeper philosophical point of view. Here, I am wondering about philosophy as being about the pursuit of wisdom for living. After cultural relativism and postmodernism there has been a shift to philosophy as rhetoric, alongside a fragmentation of values.

The problem which I see with the idea of 'beyond the pale' is that it is culturally and historically relative. Also, it may depend on situational contexts.

For example, I am aware of how what is considered appropriate or not varies on a written forum to face to face groups which I attend. On the forum, certain remarks are unacceptable, such as racism but in philosophy discussion poor or low quality argument are key issues. In face to face interaction, factors like racism and sexism are also unacceptable but the focus is more about sensitivity rather than formulation of arguments.

While there are unclear markers of ''beyond the pale' vs 'the unacceptable', one possible measure which holds up to rationality is the idea of respect for others in general.

I am sure that some who read my thread may be unsympathetic about my groans about the NHS and welfare state. However, have one big grouse, which I think is significant. I came out of hospital after having pneumonia and I finding it difficult to get a face to face appointment for follow-up care because I got discharged within hours of coming off oxygen. I am fearful that without face to face aftercare I may end up back in hospital.

The underlying issue which I see is how so many aspects of the system are reliant on online apps etc. In particular, I need a 'fit note' for the DWP and it is unclear from my discussion with a receptionist if this can be done at the face to face appointment or has to be done separately using certain apps. It also requires Zoom and this doesn't work where I am living because of a poor signal where I live .

So, I am fearing both benefits being stopped and ending up in hospital again if cannot get necessary medical care. It is so stressful, affecting both my physical and mental health and seems to be about a system where almost everything has been put in the hands of Gov. UK websites, which were introduced so much during the time of lockdown.

Sorry that I have taken a while getting back to you. I agree that population is an issue but I am a little confused by your stance. That is because in England, at least, the problem is such a large population rather than the problem of the population not growing. This is partly due to medicine having increased life expectancy and social care needs previously. That is one of the reasons why age for retirement has been increased for men and women, and will continue to be increased.

Nevertheless, while life expectancy has increased previously, health is variable and many are unlikely to be fit enough to sustain employment until the official retirement age.

There is so much medical technology and pharmaceuticals but it is costly. The NHS and welfare state are at breaking point because of mass population. Amidst this, it is that many are not receiving what they need amidst the cost and chaos. Individuals are becoming mere numbers, with some gaining what they need while some are being thrown into deprivation.

There is probably a degree of functional of the 'unemployed', but it might have gone to the extent of dysfunctionality. This is when it is alongside many people signed off as long-term sick. With the latter group, there is so much debate as to people abusing the system, to opt out, or being ill genuinely. Both of these call into question the nature of 'work'. It is both the source of money for survival and about service, especially meaningful service. The idea of work to serve others and to find meaning may have been cast aside as people are expected to function and compete with machines. The value of the human may have become lost.

As far as scapegoating is concerned, which may include the unenemployed, mentally ill and other groups, it is not very progressive. So many are critical of wokeism but the idea of scapegoating as an asset of mass psychology can be criticised strongly being about the darker side of human nature. Rationality could lead to a deeper understanding and move beyond scapegoating and its projective processes in social groups.

The fragmentation of community may be a contributing factor to problems, especially isolation as so much is done alone, on-line. Such isolation may foster self-centerdness because it involves living in an egoistic bubble. Lockdowns created isolation, which affected mental health on a long term basis and in the midst of lockdown there was such a transition to virtual life which may be creating many kinds of problems.

It is a big problem that so many people are relying on benefits, especially due to mental and physical problems.

I am in the category whereby I am unemployed, considered fit for work, with no restrictions. However, I got so ill physically with a chest infection that I ended up in hospital with a chest infection and on oxygen. I had to report being in hospital to the DWP and was meant to provide a 'fit note' within 7 days. I am out of hospital but not fully well, needing to get to a GP for paperwork, but too unwell to travel to GP presently, especially as I am not managing to get one locally. A lot of problems stem from almost everything being done online, with artificial intelligence involved.

Finding work is not easy either. I apply for jobs all the time and often get no responses or unhelpful ones. In particular, I get sent spam from organisations that I apply for, such as jobs in other cities far away or with job requirements I don't have. So many of the 'middle' range jobs are vanishing in the information era. There is the option of applying for lower positions but when I do I usually get rejected or hear nothing.

Also, with the whole idea of getting the long- term sick back to work, part of the problem is that in a competitive society, preference is given to the most able. Employers don't admit to discrimination but it happens. There is also a trend towards what are considered to be Equal Opportunities details, which used to be separated and anonymous, being included in the main section, which means that discrimination can begin at the application stage.

The whole emphasis on getting people back to work often rests on assumptions about laziness. It ignores the way in which physical and mental health problems affect performance. Attempts to get the unemployed and long-term sick back to work need to go beyond telling people that work is good for them. Working may often help but it also causes stress, just as being expected to survive without financial resources impacts upon health.

As the world (as we know it is 'being dismantled, there no universal consensus about morality and what is acceptable. This was drawn from postmodern analysis and culture relativism. However, that doesn't mean necessarily that ideas of human rights and economic ethics are insignificant and meaningless. What do you think about this?

I agree that so much is historically traceable. The privatations of the Thatcher years were significant.

It is extremely important to note how life expectancy may be decreasing, especially in certain areas. I am wondering how far this problem which is occurring will develop, especially for certain vulnerable groups. Also, so much has changed after Covid and the cost of living crisis. More children are living in poverty increasingly. Quality of life for people in Britain, which used to be a wealthy nation, is diminishing rapidly, with some so much more affected than others. The gulf between the rich and poor is widening and this probably corresponds with poor health.

I agree that initiatives need to be started and ones that are innovative as opposed to punitive. The problem may be that the needs of the people, as opposed to those in power, need to be addressed.

The blaming on gays and foreigners are part of the problem of unhelpful propaganda. More recently, in England the blame is on the unemployed and people who are disabled or unwell mentally. It is a targeting of those who are less powerful.

I am aware that many may view the 'nanny' element of welfare as an imposition, especially with the idea of taxes. Nevertheless, the English welfare state has been modelled by so many other nations. In Western society, the emphasis on individualism and loss of community, means that without such welfare many would just die on the streets.

This is starting to happen in England, especially as deaths of the homeless are not recorded any longer. Invisible underclasses are developing. Of course, many have become dependent on the welfare state, used and abused it and stretched it to breaking point. But, one critical factor is what happens now when so many jobs are vanishing as tasks once performed by humans are being done by machines. How are those without work, especially those whose work abilities are restricted by health conditions expected to survive?

The problem is that ideas like the young should stay away from GPs are such sweeping generalisations. The young can become very sick, not just mentally but physically.

Also, the notion that only the sickest should be using GPs involve a culture of fixing very severe problems. If problems are identified early, far less extreme treatment measures may be needed. There is also the idea of health promotion, but this can sometimes lapse into mere prescriptive advice rather than looking at underlying needs and issues.

Getting to the route of inequalities and poor health is going to be a key factor. The idea of staff going door to door in deprived areas seems going but it may be a bit hit and miss. Some people will not be home and it misses the need to address those who are seeking help. There was the idea of walk-in clinics and part of the problem was that they were overused. This points to GP surgeries and the NHS being at breaking point, especially in densely populated areas.

One aspect which is vital is for the link between deprivation, poverty and poor health to be addressed fully. Those with lack of money are less able to care for themselves fully, especially if they are struggling to buy food which is healthy and other essentials. This comes down to the lowest rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I hope that you do not get pneumonia. What governments don't seem to be paying attention to is the way that social conditions affect mental and physical health. In England, there is a drive to get people back to work but without attention to why they are getting sick. But, I won't say too much in this specific thread other than to say that the role of the philosopher may be to look in a more analytical way, drawing together ideas from various disciplines, with clear arguments.

It's probably not a topic that I would pursue for this particular activity in though, as I think that it watching too much news which contributed to me getting unwell recently. Not that I wish to side-step politics. I nearly started a thread on it while in hospital but decided it would probably make me deteriorate if I did it at this moment. All in good time and right place. If anything, I see the question of so much trouble as raising the issue of collapse or potential transformation. But I am sure that I have said this many times in various threads. Of course, it is an area which you, or someone else could tackle for this activity in a unique way.

I certainly see problematic aspects of theism, especially the whole emphasis on 'sin', including original sin and sexuality. I come from a background of being troubled by fundamentalist Christians preaching to me.

As for the idea of 'magic' and metaphysics that is a little different. As you and probably others on the forum are aware, I navigated a lot of my angst over religion, not by atheism or theism but by the writing of Carl Jung. Some have criticised Jung for being an atheist and others, for him being too sympathetic with the idea of 'God'. The problem which I see with Jung is something ambiguity between an emphasis on the 'supernatural' and 'nature'.

Of course, Jung's ideas were developed in the last century when the dialogue between science, religion and science were in need of so much reconciliation. This may be what is happening and still needed in 21st Century thinking. One book which I found to be important was Lyall Watson's 'Supernature', which was written in the 20th Century, because it looks at the concept of the supernatural, demystying it. The supernatural, and magic, is often seen as being separate from nature. This may be the problem and that magic is about patterns and connections, and there being more to sensory (or extrasensory) perception than Cartesian-Newtonian thinkers have acknowledged.

The idea of cosmic consciousness is also compatible with Taoism. It was during Christendom, that a firm definitive idea of believers vs non-believers grew, with an emphasis on outlawing heretics. Then, this definitive division was stepped into by science, especially the debate between materialism and idealism. Those who see beyond these, whether they call themselves atheists, theists, or whatever, may have a more expansive approach to the questions of 'truth'.