I am reading 'Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens: The Four Horsemen (The Discussion that Sparked an Atheist Revolution, 2019). One idea which I will raise for your area of debate, if relevant, is that of how we consider religious texts. Harris queries the nature of texts as being an 'epistemological gold standard'. He asks,
'If the Bible isn't a magical book, Christianity evaporates. If the Qur'an isn't a magic, Islam evaporates. And when you look at the books and ask yourself, "Is there the slightest shred of evidence that this is a product of omniscience?'

I believe that the nature of religious texts is important to understanding about truth and religious claims. It can be argued that any careful consideration of theism or atheism needs to take this on board as an aspect of the debate about the existence of God. What do you think about this, in relation to the logic of theism or atheism?

I accidentally knocked my phone, sending my reply through before I finished it. But, I managed to edit and finish it afterwards, as above. I also wish to add that I do believe that we need to 'earn' or find our own ideas for ourselves, but I am not sure that everyone does. I would imagine that educational systems are so variable in giving people the foundation for being able to think for themselves.

I think that the question of socialism vs brainwashing is extremely complex, and I do see your point about being brought up to be tolerant as a form of brainwashing in itself. I am not sure that I was actually brought up to tolerant as such, because my parents were homophobic and I am bisexual. I was also expecting and agreed to be confirmed as a Roman Catholic at age 11, which meant that I was accepting it as a lifetime faith, and that was many years before I had even begun to question religious beliefs at all.

I wonder if anyone is ever taught to be open minded, or whether it happens by default. I also believe that it is extremely complex because we live in such a diverse society. As it happens I have not brought any children into the world, but if I had, I really don't know what I would teach them in order to enable them to think as freely as possible. I am sure that I would give them a wide perspective on religion, science and knowledge. However, I would probably have to be careful in order not to indoctrinate them to be politically correct. Thank goodness that I have no children to worry about, as it is hard enough sorting out my own ideas

I was brought up with religious beliefs, and had friends who were not religious when I was a child, so I was able to reflect on it when I was about 10 or 11. However, what I do think is that brainwashing involves so many other aspects of ideas. I was aware as a child of others who were racist and had very narrow political views, based on their family background, and I believe that was every bit as strong as any religious set of ideas or values.

So many cannot question the beliefs that they have been taught, and, strangely, I think that my parents taught me critical thinking skills as well as religious ideas. I do think that it is brainwashing when people are taught a certain set of ideas or values in such a way that they are so restricted in being able to see outside of that set of values. It is as if one picture of reality is delivered with some kind of hypnotic power.

Generally, my own view is that shifts in religious views and other ones is that they do fluctuate according to needs, personal and social. I know that my own questioning of what I had been taught was when those beliefs become unworkable for me.

What I was surprised about was how so many people I know who are from Africa adopted the Christian beliefs which had been delivered to them by missionaries. I had been of the view that Western people had gone to Third World nations, and 'sold' a particular view of reality to these people. However, generally, when I have said this to people I know who are from Africa they disagree with me completely, with only one or two of them seeing any connection between religion and politics.

I think that we speak of being in a secular age on this forum, but I would be surprised if that many people in society would describe it that way. Most people who I know who are not religious tend to just say that they are 'lapsed' or don't have a religion. However, I am sure that it is hard to generalise about people's beliefs, but in the last few years, I have found that most people I know have some religious beliefs, Christian or Muslim. I have been surprised to meet so many people who attend religious services. I really wonder if there is much available information to suggest whether we are in a secular age, and how this is even measured.

I couldn't see any feminist approach to Iris's comments and she didn't really make any arguments. She just kept saying that transgender people offended her sense of being a woman, and she just kept writing repetitive posts, and not taking on board anyone else's point of view at all. If she had not been banned I wonder if she would still be writing on the thread right now.

Also, even before she launched onto the particular thread, she was writing so many comments on other thread discussions, just as a couple of others who got banned recently were doing.

I think that it is so easy to get trapped in our own personal dramas and see them as concrete realities. I think that this applies at all ages, and self awareness is so variable. I believe that some people are so much more psychologically minded than others. It does seem that we all vary so much and some people find it hard for accept this. For example, they insist that their music taste is the ultimate, just like arguing for a certain set of beliefs. I do believe that the understanding of subjectivity is very different from adherence to relativism.

It does seem that for many people ideas such as those in the sciences, especially physics, are treated in almost the same way as previous religious ideas. People may not always understand the logistics of evolution or quantum physics, but they may be filled with awe, or even be mystified by them. But, the worldviews arising from science are so different from the religious ones. I remember how I was brought up with religious beliefs, and many others I went to primary school were not, and it did seem like their underlying reality was different to the one which I inhabited. Beliefs and ideas shape our experiences of reality in such a powerful way.

I believe that it was that kind of philosophy which created a negative image of philosophy, even among academics. It has taken the ideas of many other disciplines to bring philosophy back to life, and even now analytic philosophy probably casts a haunting and daunting shadow.

Thanks for your reply, and I plan to read further, possibly Pierce and others. I am not sure that art is meant to be 'accurate' copying or representation. I am not sure that is even possible. It would probably defeat the purpose of art. I do wonder if the artist is fully able to follow intention fully, because the artist does not have a complete understanding of the intersubjective realities of the audience.

Thank goodness. She was extremely determined in expressing her views.

I believe that the issues we are discussing are so complex. Beyond the issues of seeing what is going on in the news critically, I believe in opposing injustice and oppression. The oppression and injustice does require people to make a stand but dangers of political conflict, and nuclear threats make the conflicts even more ominous. It all feels like such a dangerous juggling act.

I know people who were born in China, and it is on that basis that I wonder about the slant of the media. Of course, I am not wishing to overlook any injustices of China or any nation. But, I do think that we have to consider the way in which America, and England, has tried to gain domination.

The war on terrorism involved America having control of the Middle East, and I believe that we are now moving into the possibility of power over China. Of course, it is easy to see oppression in other nations, but I think that an underlying aspect behind the scenes of politics, and manufactured news, is the fight for oil, which is running out rapidly.

I am a little unsure of your topic. I can see that it can appear that we are in a culture of seeing the point of view of minorities. Also, looking at prejudice and discrimination it probably is so much deeper. I am sure that many people, including philosophers had prejudices, and it is extremely complex, because these are probably deep rooted. I am aware that wokism is seen as a problem, but, how do we find the right balance between wokism and tolerance of all prejudices?

I believe that stagnation was a factor in cultural decay. If anything, we could argue that we have the exact opposite with so much conflict, but will it have the power to stop culture collapsing if civilisation was thrown into poverty. I think that your question is interesting, but wonder how it fits into the questions of our times, including climate change and the upheavals of the pandemic. I think that we are in extraordinary times, and the exploration of satisfaction and stagnation has to be viewed in the context of the extraordinary.

I think that your question raises the question of what particular 'being' know itself through us? Is it some transcendent reality, or our own individual experiences of being? We can ask what is being, and I believe that it has been answered in so many different ways by various thinkers from so many different ages, traditions and perspectives.

I think that advertising affects us on a subliminal level, but not just in terms of specific products, but with a whole set of values about what is desirable. It is about having the 'perfect' body, and home, lifestyle and a whole underlying rhetoric of consumer materialism. Adverts are extremely entertaining, and appear so often to those who watch television. I am not someone who watches much television at all, but I am sure that many people do, and, for this reason, adverts are a hidden subtext, affecting what people expect and seek in life.

I have just read your thread discussion. I am wondering if you are criticising the underlying ethic of consumer based systems of economics. It is bound up with value systems, and there have been critiques of such values, such as that offered by E F Schumacher, who looked at other alternatives, including smaller community based ways of living. I find these alternatives to be interesting, but it is not always that easy to translate into practice. However, I do believe that it is worth thinking about the values and ethics underlying mainstream economics.

I don't think that teaching people to be happy works, even with the help of psychotherapy interventions. If you go down that line of thinking, you might as well argue that people should only be taught how to be happy rather than being offered antidepressant medications. I believe that people may benefit from cosmetic interventions but may need psychotherapeutic interventions as well. It does not have to be one or the other, and individuals probably need guidance and support in looking at all available options.

I believe that is a rather shallow understanding of cosmetic surgery. My own experience of knowing people who have had many forms of cosmetic surgery, including gender reassignment, is that it can enable them to feel more at ease with themselves. Of course, some forms of treatment are more successful than others, and some may be less satisfied with the results, but why criticise people who choose to have interventions to help them to feel happier? Surely, they should be encouraged not criticised.

I think that your point about your wife killing herself because she felt unable to be a 'woman' because she felt unable to give birth to children is important. We live in a society in which ideals about the body are ranked as important. I think that on this site, the focus is often upon transgender people, and overlooks how many other people feel uncomfortable with aspects of their bodies, and how they measure up to ideals and about masculinity and femininity, as well as other ideals. Gender dysphoria is only one aspect of misery over bodily appearance and sex changes are only one form, among many other aspects, of bodily modification.

I have only glanced at the book on Pierce's philosophy, but have been thinking about the question of eqireality in relation to a book which I have just finished, 'Investigations Into the Phenomenonology and the Ontologogy of the Work of Art'(ed Bundgaard and Stjernfelt), which focuses on the way in which reality and representations are an experience of the perceived and the artist. I think that this way of thinking about the external world does raise the question of a singular actuality. Subjective aesthetics plays such a critical role of perception, to the where we can query the underlying objective one.

Photography is not really looked at in the book, but we can wonder about whether photographs are the most accurate forms of visual art. I don't think that the answer is clearcut because photography is an art in itself, involving framing, focus, background detail and lighting. However, in some ways it is used as a general reliable information, like in passport photos to confirm identity of a person.

One aspect which I wonder about in the experience of reality is the role of mood. That is because I believe that it does affect the whole interpretation of reality. I believe that it affects perception and understanding in various ways.

I do still plan to read Pierce and look at the wider question of metaphysics, but I do believe that the phenomenological interpretation of reality, including art, is extremely important in understanding the notion of a shared reality.

I have thought about your idea, and what I think is that logic is extremely important, but, on the other hand, if feeling and intuition are left out, any philosophy will be rather inadequate. Perhaps, the twilight vision will ensure that the heat of the sunlight does not burn these aspects of truth to the point where they are overlooked completely.

I think that the fast paced 'go getting' nature of culture contributes to depression, because we are often put into a position where meeting of goals is emphasised. Also, we are subject to standards and images in the media and online, which can lead people to compare themselves and often feel rather inadequate. I am not saying that any of these factors can be overcome, and development of personal goals is important for empowerment and self esteem.

I also believe that a lot of people do feel depressed on account of suffering they come across and about the state of the world. There is the issue of clinical depression, but it is a whole spectrum ranging from sadness to depression which affect the ability to function, and often requires medical interventions. Depression can be clinical, but to some extent sadness and melancholy are 'normal' aspects of the panorama of human emotions.

I think that all the categories are applicable but moral decisions involve such a complex interplay of these. We live in social contexts in which the norms vary, but we also make moral decisions individually. There is a subjective aspect, but also objective measures, involving the use of reason.Moral choices can be extremely difficult sometimes involving balancing so many different, often conflicting variables.

I think that the link you provide is extremely useful, because it gives clear information. I believe if people wish to understand the topic it is worth looking at this link for clarity.

I can see the problem which you identify with the lack of logic. I like the "Madfool's thread, but we do have to be careful that we don't overthrow the path of reason, because we need it to help us make sense of so much in life. We can cope with a bit of twilight, but if it gets too dark, we will need a torch, or some candles, to try and make some way forward, or else we may stumble and fall.

I will think about it in the light of day( and perhaps again in the twilight).

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.