My own view is that philosophy is the attempt to understand reallty. This involves many aspects because when one looks at life, it looms before us in so many angles, and it includes oneself and the reality within. There are so many aspects to search through, and the search for knowledge is infinite. There are so many books to read, and in studying philosophy it is also not possible to separate it from other disciplines completely.

There are so many loops and hidden corners, and it is possible to get more lost than one was before stepping into philosophy. It can be one step forwards, and two backwards. But, of course, there are ladders towards fantastic books. I believe that philosophy can be a great pleasure and it can be a lifelong quest.

I edited my first attempt, a little bit.

I had logged off once for tonight, but I just found this and found it to be a fascinating exploration. I think that it gives a really unusual metaphorical slant to the whole question of logic, and other ways of seeing. I do believe that a lot of people wish to see brighter pictures, realism and even superrealism.

We could ask if too much light is leading to some kind of distortion of vision. The truth may be hidden in the shadows, so it may be that we need to go into the depths of the twilight to see beyond the intensity of the glare of the light. It could be that rather than looking for the light beyond Plato's cave, we need to look more into subtle shadows themselves, to uncover hidden gems of insight and wisdom. I wonder whether the twilight may reveal contemplation, as the hidden aspect beyond the light of logic.

Okay, I will look at the book briefly, but won't worry about reading too much of it, and I am about to log out. Sometimes, I find if I write too much philosophy late at night I have trouble getting to sleep. But, I do wish to continue it, because I find it very interesting.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Strangely, I downloaded a book on Peirce's philosophy, so I will have a look at it tomorrow and reply to you. I do believe that it is worth reading in order to think about all these matters in connection with writers' ideas, because they have given a lot of thought to all these issues.

I believe that reality is such a flexible term because it so vast, and, in connection to the third category can be seen as infinite. This means that in many ways the question is so wide that it almost too difficult to answer. I was initially thinking of the matter in this widest sense, because as human beings we are inclined to wonder about the big picture, and how it works, or about underlying processes, and premises for explanations.

Thinking about the intrasubjective, there is the establishment of daily reality, which is about the empirical. When we think about the distinction between waking reality and that which arises within dream states of consciousness, most people regard waking life as being the more real but it is not an absolute matter.

I do believe that the intersubjective is in many ways another category but in some ways the shared understandings of others help shape the intrasubjective, especially in childhood. I am thinking that children often live in more of a mythical universe, and even adults can become confused, such as in mental states of psychosis. In such cases, where delusional thinking become apparent, it is often that the individuals need to be enabled to get back to the shared meanings of other people, to make sense of the intrasubjective.

I think that your categories are useful, but reality is something which expands outside of us, and includes us, with our own interior consciousness. It reminds me of how I once went into to a cafe as a teenager, wishing to draw the inside of it. I simply didn't know where to begin, because it was surrounding me. I was looking out and I was within it. I felt overwhelmed because I had not learned at that stage how to begin to frame a specific view of the reality which appeared before me.

In many ways, even though we have shared realities, I do believe that each one of us has a unique reality. I remember reading a sociological text, by Berger and Luckman, 'The Social Construction of Reality', in which the authors speak of how we construct our own identities in symbolic ways.

Each of us has such a unique set of experiences and, finds meaning in the social contexts in which we find ourselves, and we also can choose the life we have, even if we have a limited range of choices. Also, we are so unique in the way in which we interpret our experiences. Each person has a subjective set of likes and dislikes. For example, I know how my own tastes in music are not necessarily the same as many others I know.

Even though we ask certain common philosophical questions, it is likely that each of us answers these so differently, even if we follow the principles of reason. In particular, when we consider the question of God, it is likely that how each of us would consider the 'reality' called God would vary so much.

When I began the thread question I did not have the word 'your' in the title, and it became apparent to me that the answers which people were coming up with were about trying to define reality, especially in terms of physics. I had not realised that people would think of the question in that way. I do believe that even though there are shared aspects, or objective means of thinking, about reality, each of us sees reality in a distinct way, and this varies at different points in a person's life. Each of us, at any moment, has a different perspective, including aesthetic,, emotional and rational aspects, but, at the same time, we do navigate these in connection to shared views and specific understanding of standards which are seen as objective.

I think that this discussion has come to an end and then restarted a few times. You are welcome to take up anything you wish to. I began the thread querying the solidity of reality, and it moved more into a gallery in page 11, so I see the thread as a very fluid exploration of reality.

One thought that I had in relation to your question is whether certain ideas had to be given birth to, and that specific individuals had to live for that reason. Where would evolution of culture and thinking be if Kant, Darwin and Freud had not lived? Would other individuals have arrived at their views, and would the philosophies have been a bit different? Of course, Plato speaks of ideas as Forms, but this is different from the realisations of specific philosophical systems.

I have really turned your question of the immortality of ideas round to the life before birth of ideas. However, I do wonder if specific life purpose of the importance thinkers was partly connected to bringing forth certain ideas, because the ideas were so closely interlinked with the lives which they lead.

I forgot to press the arrow, so I am doing that now, so that you are notified of my reply.

I think that one has to think what it means to speak of by 'mysterious', and whether it means that questions are difficult, or simply that areas of thought are completely fuzzy. A short while ago I had a thread titled, 'Can the philosophical mysteries be solved at all? The central philosophy mysteries I drew attention to were the existence of God, free will and life after death. I am not saying that people cannot come up with any answers to these questions, but simply that it is hard to establish definitive answers. My own thread became fairly long, and I am not sure that any clear answers were established. If you wish to read that thread you could scroll back a couple of pages, as it is recent, or look in the 'search' engine on the site. Or, you may wish simply to see what fresh answers anyone comes up with in response to your question.

You are new to the forum, so I welcome you and hope that it works out well for you. I have no idea of where you are coming from in terms of philosophical background or interests. I say that because this will partly determine how you think about the 'mysteries' in philosophy. There are so many different thinkers and perspectives, and I believe that you will find some who do not believe that there are any mysteries and that empirical methods can enable us to think through most problems. I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time, I do still believe that there are no easy answers. Language is important, and clarity in this can help untangle some philosophical knots. On the other hand, I do still believe that apart from analysis, which is useful for clear thinking, the other side of this is contemplation, which involves allowing imagination, in exploring some of the deepest and puzzling aspects of existence, life and death.

I definitely went through a big theosophy stage a few years ago. I attended meetings and I went to Creme's last lecture before he died. I was not really convinced of his ideas but I did find transmission meditation, which he developed, as being helpful, as I went to several workshops. But, I do think that it is easy to get carried away with such ideas. But, I do think that time on this forum has enabled me to look at ideas from a far more critical angle than previously. At times, I was floundering in a sea of all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities.

It is true that in Christianity God is overseeing the angels, and I was certainly taught the story of Lucifer and the fall of the angels. I believe that it was probably more based on the ideas of John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'. However, I expect that Milton drew upon other sources. Also, I think that many people have interpreted earthquakes and catastrophes as representing the wrath of God.

One idea which I came across by a rather controversial figure, Benjamin Creme, was that Jesus was only the Christ from the time he began his ministry. However, Creme's ideas are very unusual, with an emphasis on Jesus and Buddha being brothers in bringing forth Christ consciousness. However, Creme was expecting the emergence of Maitreya, who he believed was living in East London, since 1977. Creme died a few years ago, in his 90s. Of course, in some ways he was a cult figure, and I don't think that his ideas are really taken very seriously.

I think that it can be a source of confusion for people. On one hand, the God image represented by Christ appears to be full of compassion, but the God of the OT as angry. Jung, who is coming from a psychological perspectives, believes that the angry God is on the rise in the dark destructive tendencies of humanity. Stepping slightly aside of this, we could interpret it to mean that whatever force behind nature is showing vengeance in the form of climate change and Covid_19. But, I am pointing to this as one way of seeing things and I am not saying that it should be taken too literally.

Also, I do think that your earlier point about the idea of thinking about many gods being ruled by a higher one is interesting, but it is probably more in line with polytheism, or paganism.

I come more from a Jungian perspective on God, and a general open questioning approach. However, you have just mentioned there being one omnipotent God and it has lead me to wonder about the contrasting pictures of the wrathful Jahweh of the OT and the picture of the forgiving Christ in the NT. Do you think that the two can be reconciled?

I am concerned that at some point there will be a war between China and one of the large superpowers. But, I have thought this for a long time, and believe that it would potentially be the war which may end almost everything.

When Covid_19 broke out, and China was blamed I thought that potential war with China was a possible underlying rhetoric. So, I am rather concerned that the boycott China idea is part of this. But, I am not really sure, because I don't always know where to get reliable news, as I am sure that there is so much going on behind the scenes of news headlines and stories.

I think that Ouspensky suggested that certain minds would be able to survive if they were developed in such a way to be distinct. Of course, Ouspensky's ideas were based on those of Guirjieff, and focused on the concept of waking up beyond robot consciousness. However, I was not really sure what to make of the view that certain minds might exist beyond death, but not all, and it is so different from the idea of the eternal soul, or spirit.

I am not sure that it would require an immortal mind to transmit immortal ideas. That is because it is easier to transfer ideas to other minds than it is to transfer the individual mind itself. Ideas are exchanged through education, books and electronic means. It is so much simpler for ideas to have life after death than human beings. Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre and so many others live on in the world, almost like real individuals, on the basis of their written words. Their ideas are recorded, and passed on, for so many generations. Also, the nature of some deaths, like Elvis, John Lennon and Jim Morrison contribute to the work of certain minds of musicians or writers being immortalized as legends.

Funnily enough, no one has mentioned social reality in this thread and that is one of the most basic aspects of the encounter with reality on a daily basis. We are born into a world of human beings and are interdependent on others. Even if we live isolated lives, which was true for many more during the pandemic, we rely upon others for so much. We live in houses or flats built by others, wear clothes which have been made by others and most of us eat food from shops.

But, for most of us our whole reality is bound up with other people. I know that my own life is so different as a result of living with the people I live with currently, than with the group of people I shared with a year ago. Social experience is so central to life, and there are so many people to interact with and take into consideration. I find that it is rare for me to end up not experiencing some kind of interaction with a person I have not met before on most days in my life, and I am talking about in actual life, not counting the internet or the telephone. So, social aspects of existence and conditions are probably the most essential aspects of life, and affect the whole quality of experiences.

Also, our entire experience of technology is a key aspect of existence. Even though I am not a big fan of television, I grew up in a house where the television was on in the background most of the time. I have even come across people who seem to think that the characters in soap operas are the same people in real life and not just acting. I have seen people who are psychotic having conversations with the television. Also, we are gradually becoming so immersed in using our devices. My mother gets rather annoyed with me reading and writing on my phone so much when I am staying with her. However, she carries her phone around constantly in case she should miss a phone call. We are locked into a world of devices, complaining if our signals are not fast enough, and if they go wrong or we lose them it can seem almost like our usual sense of reality has collapsed.

I wasn't familiar with the set of beliefs until I looked at your link, but I am aware of others who spoke of the Elohim. There is a whole tradition of thinking about aliens who were involved in the creation of the world, ranging from Zechariah Sitchkin and Erich von Daniken.

Personally, I am inclined more towards Jung's perspective of alien encounters. In his book, 'Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky', he offers a psychological interpretation. He sees such encounters as visionary experience and as being the equivalent to figures in the secular age, whereas in more religious times, human beings often reported encounters with angels and demons. So, I think that the question which I see is whether aliens, as reported in stories of alien abduction, exist in the external world, or are the manifestations of psychic reality?

I got to know a few people socially and discovered at some point that they had a criminal past. I wouldn't wish to expand on this on an online forum because it is public. I also have some experience of working in forensic psychiatry and I found it an interesting challenge, but extremely difficult at times. But, in the context of forensic psychiatry, I am interested in therapeutic interventions for people with antisocial personality disorder. I don't think that I wish to go further with working in forensic psychiatry because the management of aggression and violence is extremely difficult, and I am not a large person. But, I would like to work in the field of addiction because I am certainly interested in the exploration of psychological conflict.

I have known people who have committed crimes and been to prison, but most of the ones I have known have also had a positive, caring side as well. But, I guess that I have managed to steer away from the real hardcore of people who simply don't care about others at all. Saying that, I do come across some people who are fairly controlling, but that is often based on their own beliefs that they know more than others. But, really, I prefer to keep my independence from others views, and I am a bit selective in who I get to know when I am out and about because I used to get to know so many people with a lot of problems, and it gave me a lot of unnecessary conflict.

So, how would you say describe the 'evil' in the people you came across, and the whole category of this? Do you think that it is a distinct category, completely different from the 'normal' population?

Dare I say it, I am a big fan of Jung, and once wrote a thesis on Jung's idea of the shadow. I also studied art psychotherapy, so I am inclined to look at life on a psychological level. It is true that some people appear to be 'evil' and the most obvious examples are historical examples, such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein. But, I do believe that we all have potential for good and evil and it is too easy to point to the evil in certain individuals, such as criminals, especially murderers.

I probably think of continuums of superiority and inferiority in relation to how they manifest in bipolar mood disorder. But, in some ways, I do think that these opposites are apparent in some degree in most people. I am probably more inclined to lean to the point of the deflated or wounded ego. I tend to interpret setbacks as a sign of my own failure, and have to work on not thinking in that way. It seems that people have varying degrees of ego strength.

But, I do think that conflict with others is often the outer manifestation of issues with the self, but of course, it probably has a biological basis as well. However, some people fuel anger and aggression outwards, and some beat themselves up instead. I would imagine that addictions, such as alcohol and drug dependency, and self harm can sometimes be a result of conflict turned towards self destruction.

What I do believe is that superiority and inferiority are poles, and that a sense of power can easily collapse into the opposite. Most people can probably navigate the extremes, but it can be a fine line for some people at times.

One idea which I think is relevant is the idea of the inflated ego. People may develop grandiosity in the face of feeling insignificant. We all like to feel of value, and have such different experiences. Human identity may involve validation from others, even popularity. Ideas of success and failure are important and how we view ourselves, especially in the competition within social life.

Your question as to whether the underlying shared reality we know is changing. It probably could involve questions about physics and laws of nature. We can also ask about time and change. We could even ask, could time ever end? What would that mean, as we usually link time itself with the process of change. Would time ending imply that nothing ever changes ever again? There is the question as to why something exists rather than nothing, but one can also ask whether, at any point in the distance, nothing will ever exist ever again?

Thinking about the laws of nature, one useful idea is Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance, although I am not sure how far this is accepted in science or in philosophy. However, the general idea is of a memory inherent in nature, called morphic fields. The underlying principle is that once patterns or learning is achieved, this becomes encoded into making such pathways possible for others. It seems to be like an invisible factor behind evolution. But, the point is that it is about evolution, and implies change, even if it is a gradual process.

Another important question about the changing nature of reality is the question of linearity or cycles. It appears that some aspects of nature, such as the seasons are cyclical. On the other hand, other aspects, such as the life of a human being or other lifeforms are linear. However, I wonder to what extent reality involves linear patterns within the context of larger cycles, or, alternatively the cycles as being aspects of the linear? In other words, is the linear or cyclical process of change the overriding pattern of the whole? It is so hard to know, because even with the aid of science, we are restricted in our knowledge, because we cannot see the full picture of the cosmos or of time, and are confronted by what appears to be infinite and eternal. But, will the infinite and eternal cease to exist at any point? In other words, could time and space ever collapse?

I am not quite sure how my discussion on the thread has become about love affairs. I have so few, and most of my friends, male or female, are single. I think that may have been more the point which I am making. Relationships, and even friendships can be complicated. So much can be about superficial aspects of existence, or common ground. However, I do have a few of friendships which go back to teenage years, or before, so these are most likely based on deeper connections.

I know a number of people from school and college who married, and a lot of the relationships didn't survive long. I think that this is part of the problem of finding connections beyond the immediate. Relating to others is extremely complex, because it involves so much projection. We project so much onto others, and others do this to each one of us.We could ask to what extent is a person really in love with another, or with the image of another? The imagined other may be so different from the actual person.

I think that your post raises a couple of important questions. Firstly, we live in a society based on images and the idea of the perfect body. We live in a world of appearances, but also of subjective experience beyond the frontiers of experience. This is the problem of knowing other minds. Often people make assumptions about others, based on generalisations about others, and on a very limited knowledge of a specific 'other'.

I think that it would be a mistake to not understand the importance of appearances, in the sense that we care how we appear to others. It is the basic starting point of human interaction. However, I think that it is also important to look behind appearances, because surface and deeper levels of knowing others may uncover more than is apparent on a superficial level.

I am just adding the following quotation for anyone who is still interested in the question of what is reality. It comes from an interview by a lecturer in sociology, Martin Savransky, who specialises in the intersection between philosophy, post colonial studies and political ecology. The reference comes from an interview in 'Philosophy Now' (June/July 2021) .

. He says:
'A great number of realisms, including some of the most speculation ones, tend to be profoundly concerned with the question of how to draw the line between what is real and what is not. In a sense, each form of realism is its own way of drawing that line. But that, to my mind, ends up transforming realism into a belligerent gesture '

He goes on to say,
'What I call pluralisistic realism, meanwhile, is first and foremost characteristiesed by a refusal to draw that line. I'm more interested in problematizing the very distinction between reality and unreality, not by claiming that there is no such thing as reality, but by wagering that everything is some sense real, and not just what is intedenpent of us...Instead of seeking to determine once and for all what the structure of reality is so that we can draw the line that enables us to disqualify some things from it, we connected the risk of metaphysics with the question of what reality is capable of? I mean, let's go out there and find out what's real. ..Yet "going out there" is not a rejection of metaphysics. Quite the contrary! It is rather an attempt to put the test of metaphysical speculation to the test of experiences.'

In this way, we are not talking about speculations about hidden reality, but about potentials for becoming and of creating future realities. I thought that I would add this final reflection to the the thread before it becomes lost and buried forever more.

I do agree that part of the debate may depend on what is logical. I have read some of the ideas of Strawson, and I do believe that they are useful for thinking about logic. However, our ways of viewing life are so intricately bound up with reason and logic. Of course, it is possible to come up with dictionary definitions of terms, especially logic, theism and atheism, but these are meanings used in daily discourse, rather than in fuller philosophy analysis.

Therefore, I think that the debate will be interesting, but both positions of 'logic' are likely to be open to question. It is an interesting area for debate, but I am inclined to think that rather than being a matter of rigorous debate, it is so much more, it is not about concepts as such, but about how we contemplate the world and reality. It may be that there are no right or wrong answers ultimately. However, the battle between theism and atheism is such an interesting philosophy debate, and is central to how most people begin to think about so many other philosophy questions and issues.

I think that we should listen to both positions and judge the arguments fairly. The debate has barely started, and I wish to learn from it. Part of the problem which I see is that the debate position is framed in the proving of the negative, or of arguing against atheism, as the position of there being no God, or of it being illogical. This will depend upon a specific viewpoint of atheism, because there may be variations of atheism. So, this means that Amen has potentially put himself in the position of refuting any form of atheism. He may have set himself a task of lifelong philosophy.

However, as I have interacted with Amen and Proof, I wish to give both a full hearing, because they are probably approaching the hardest question in philosophy.

I have just come across a review of a republication of Mary Midgley' s final book, 'What is Philosophy For', by John Shand, in 'Philosophy Now' (June/July 2021), so I thought that it may be relevant to your thread discussion.

I believe that the book was her final one, written at age 99. Shand suggests that her view is that 'philosophy stands at the apex of the multitude of ways that we can think about the world because it lays out how these ways of thinking about the world and about our ways of fitting into it'. Midgely's philosophy has
'two functions, somewhat related. One is to create some kind of ordered whole for thought. The other is to work against being locked into one viewpoint such that we cease to consider all others. This does not mean that we accept all the views as equally justified or true- it's not an open door for relativism- but it does mean that we know how to place our views within a greater structure.'

Shand argues that Midgely's philosophy is about
' taking up and talking in two hands and talking and encompassing both which is the role of philosophy, allowing us to think about a problem in a more illuminating way, rather than futilely and battering away from one position.' This idea certainly makes sense to me, because it does seem that many people get locked into one mode of thinking, like a form of tunnel vision.

In criticism of Midgely's perspective, Shand suggests that one problem of her thinking is that 'she seems unable to pull off what she advocates', and this could be seen to apply to the idea of philosophical plumbing, in that it is not sufficiently analytical enough. However, what Shand is pointing to, and what I would agree with, is how her outlook is useful for considering the basis of how we approach and frame ideas, from narrow to larger pictures.

I am extremely unclear how long the transhumanists would try to extend life, and I am not really sure it would work completely, short of having a complete body replacement. My mother used to wonder how bodies would look in heaven, and I wonder the same about transhuman bodies. Would they look artificial, rather like steampunk robots?

I think that we are in deep trouble with the problems you list. However, one of the difficulties is that all the doom and gloom could end up creating a self fulfilling prophecy. It can be hard not to feel gloomy about it all, and perhaps we need to remain positive, and look to finding solutions to the real, imminent problems, especially climate change. It seems to be escalating so rapidly.

Of course, human beings have often expected the end of the world. The end of the millennium passed and the date of the end of the end of the Mayan calendar, 2012, has passed. People feared the end of the world and spoke of a new age. It may be that the current difficulties are a mixture of both scenarios, and the human race has to find ways to address the serious problems asap.

Funnily enough, I always thought that 'Being and Nothingness' would be dry to read and I actually read it about 6 weeks ago. I could see see parallels with 'The Nausea'. It seemed that it was the same author's voice coming through in a slightly different way. But, also in response to your earlier comments to me I do think that interior monologues offer so much scope. But, I think that when that happens, it usually ends up creating literary fiction. However, I do rank the genre of literary fiction and I also think that crossovers of genres are extremely interesting, and give scope for experimentation.

It is just that it does appear to me that this is so unusual for a person to be banned on the basis of how they wrote, or style.

I just hope that he is able to see this online and not give up. I think that it would be possible for someone to feel so demoralised for banning, but this probably comes down to a person's sense of self esteem. When someone is excluded or banned from some sphere it is easy to feel a 'failure', but hopefully this will not be the path for Anand. I am sure that failure and success transcend being able to post on this site and, I will try to remember this if I ever get banned.