Well, it is early days for you, and you will have to come to your own conclusions. I do continue to use the site because most of the people I know are not really interested in philosophy discussion. For about 5 years prior to using the site, I used to spend a lot of time reading, but not really talking to anyone about the ideas in them.

But, I am still bothered about the mysterious banning of a member, not knowing why, and it makes me worry that I may just wake up one oneday and discover that I cannot log into the site. I am left wondering if the person even knows about the ban, and may think that it is a technical glitch. I just happened to press onto the person's name and discovered that it said, 'Banned' rather than 'Member'.

I hope that you enjoy the thread on mysticism. I definitely have my punk and grunge days, and perhaps it is time for me to get tattoos. But, I would definitely want one which I would not end up regretting. A friend of mine had one removed.

But, in spite of our own coping mechanisms, I still believe in the importance of diversity of thought, and people not being forced to suppress and repress their views. That extends to philosophy and this site, because, surely, it is about dialogue and debate of ideas. My own endeavor is to try to read ideas and books on viewpoints which are different to my own, because I believe that is the way to develop as a human being.

I think that I really know some people who wish to live forever. I believe that people have varying degrees of ego strength. Some barely have enough to carry on at all, because they have been broken by harsh experiences. With the people who really seem to wish to live forever,I do wonder how this would change in the face of adversity. Regarding the transhumanists, I can't believe that the truly extended life is not going to come without a few nasty side-effects.

I think that you are new to the forum, so I hope that it goes well for you. It is possible that a number of people will be put off by your name, and you may be interested to know that there was a thread on what is mysticism a couple of months ago.

I think that a lot of people rant and rave in groups and online. I'm not really a ranter myself, but I was a bit angry today when I wrote the thread. It may be that no answer is ever given to my query about the banning, especially as it is likely that the staff may never ever bother to look at my thread as there are so many created on a daily basis.

But, I do believe that while many people do ventilate anger, or distress in some way, there are a lot who are not able to find outlets at all. I have met people who have spoken of long periods where they were isolated and alone, often feeling victimized and marginalised. Also, I have realised that people have different styles and abilities to express their feelings. Some people don't talk much at all, and channel emotions into sports whereas others channel their energies into creativity. I do believe that negative experiences can be transmuted into positive ones, but it may not be that easy always.

This is the first internet forum I have ever used, so I did not come with any particular set of expectations. Generally, I don't think we really live in a pluralistic society in which all views and all people are treated equally. I have seen so much hostility and bullying towards people who are seen as 'different'.

I believe that a lot that goes on in social groups and organisations is kept quiet. The various groups and networks have varying agendas and forbidden territories. I have witnessed this and I would like to see changes. I do think that the silences on many issues say so much. I also wonder what happens to thoughts which cannot be ventilated at all, and wonder if they end up as toxic waste, in the individual and larger psyche, and will surface at some point, in an explosive way. I believe that the silences in social structures are extremely ominous zones.

Well, so far you are the only person who has replied, so maybe this thread will create a big silence.

I think that novels and philosophy are different forms of expression of ideas about truth. Some people prefer reading novels and some prefer philosophy. I enjoy reading both, and would like to write a novel really.I think that novels give scope for saying things which cannot be explored in prose. It is possible to express ideas symbolically.Novels and philosophy, as well as other forms of writing, are different forms of expression. Some writers experimented in both: Sartre, Camus and Iris Murdoch.

I was thinking about the issue of suicide when I wrote my own response, because I was reading an exploration of the topic in Camus's 'The Rebel' yesterday. Camus was speaking of the idea of metaphysical rebellion, and, in some ways, both transhumanism and suicide appear as forms of metaphysical rebellion, one in protest against death and one in protest against life.

I was rather troubled by some of what I read on transhumanism because it would seem to be about extending life as far as possible for certain people. As it is people are living so much longer, and I am not against this, but it does affect the use of resources. I really don't know how long the transhumanists would wish to extend life too, whether it would be another 100 years or what, because it seems a bit vague. At one point, in the discussion, I noticed a remark that by the next century most people will be transhumanists, and that made me wonder how that would stand with the ongoing environmental crisis. There would be so many people on the earth.

It is interesting that the transhumanists are wishing to extend life indefinitely and, on the other hand, antinatalism is suggesting that it is better for future generations not to be born at all. I think that there may be a link, which is about maintaining life indefinitely for the living with total disregard for future generations.

As far as the future of humanity is concerned, there are so many problems, climate change and the likelihood that petroleum will run out. The death of the human race stands out as a mythical possibility, although I don't know if this would ever be global. Transhumanism appears to be wishing to overcome death, for individuals. At one point, David Pearce spoke of head transplants and I wondered how far would human beings go to try overcome death. Is the human ego so intent on continuing indefinitely? I try to keep an open mind to transhumanism but I do wonder about the underlying rhetoric of transhumanism, and I won't be queuing up for a new head when my own becomes worn out.

You are fine to speak of whatever metaphors you wish, but I just think that Midgely's plumbing one gives so much scope. The reason for this it draws on ideas of dirt and cleanliness. My own feeling is that in the history of philosophy we had a puritanical strand, arising from Kant. Then, we had the whole exploration of taboos in the advent of psychoanalysis, which was drawn upon in postmodernist philosophy.

But, I don't wish to draw out the plumbing imagery and sidetrack from the point about ideas of a social contract. But, I am about to log out shortly because I am so hot that my hands are too sticky to hold my phone to write.Besides, I don't wish to dominate the discussion, especially as I love playing with metaphors and imagery. For the time being, I will let you and others get on with the hardcore excavation of concepts at the architectural level.

They are necessary and we cannot live without them and art has been made of toilets and urinals. So maybe we need newer redesigned models, which are more reliable and visionary in scope: beautiful toilets and beautiful philosophy.

I agree that her approach does seem solid. I think that what her metaphor does point to is the importance of rethinking of basic concepts, and it is at this level that philosophy can be important, even though the practical applications of ideas is so complex. Replacing the idea of the social contract may not be completely possible because it is an implicit assumption, but fuller consideration of such an idea does mean that more thought can be applied to what is happening in social life.

This may enable the questioning of the underlying ideological narrative structures, and contribute to the evolution of ideas about the practical aspects of living in social groups. But, on a funnier level, perhaps we don't really wish, in becoming plumbers, to just end up in the toilets and urinals of philosophy, but rise to the heights of best ideals about living.

I think that you are right to see the artists and visionaries as being important in bringing ideas and culture forward. That is because culture and philosophy are not just abstract ideas, or even political ideologies, but more about imagination. Utopia may never be achieved, but it does seem to me that any real progress is about dreaming of new possibilities, even if the translation of such dreams to the real world falls far short of that which is imagined. It is also hard to know what new ideas within philosophy are waiting to be arise within human consciousness.

I think that any idea of immortality, as in conventional ideas of life after death, or ones created in a transhumanist vision, raise the question of what that life would be like. I think that it is possible to fear death in relation to the death of the personal ego, and in terms of attachment to being alive.

On the other hand, if one was in the predicament of being alive 'forever' what would one aim for? Would it be about heaven of endless delight, or the torment of having struggle perpetually? Even if death was not likely if one was living in a physical body, food and somewhere to live would still be needed. Would people have to work forever more? I don't see how the ideal of immortality would be worthwhile unless it was in some kind of utopian reality, because people struggle with suffering enough as it is in the course of the natural lifestyle.

I think that your analysis of the way in which pity is the negative side of compassion is very helpful. It is about the way in which someone may look down upon those who are seen as 'unfortunate'. Pity is connected to feeling sorry for some other person, and can often involve a sense of superiority. In that way, it is different from empathy, which is about feeling the pain of another. Of course, it is complex because it may be easier to feel concern for another in pain when one is in more of a position of relative comfort than when one is experiencing acute distress too. Empathy involves an awareness and connection to suffering, but people may have limited experience of this, dependent on their experience of suffering. So, while empathy may be seen as the ideal perhaps pity is a starting point, for beginning to reach out to the needs of others.

Going back to your question about piety and justice, in connection with religion, I think that being pious became separate from justice in Western thought gradually. However, they are probably interconnected in foundation at some point, especially in ancient philosophy, like Plato, and 'Euthypro'.

I think that happened because there was a lot of focus on whether God exists, and I it is likely that Nietzsche's philosophy and influence lead to a belief if there is no God morality was not important.That is because he developed both the idea that 'God was dead' and of going 'Beyond Good and Evil'. However, there have been thinkers who thought that being good was not dependent on belief in God, especially the movement of secular humanism. If one only believes that being a good person is important because one is being supervised, or overseen, by God that is a fear based morality. As far as I can see goodness and justice are more important to some extent in a secular context. This is because this world of the here and now is the focus, rather than upon another reality of an afterlife, and of punishment or reward of heaven or hell.

I am a dreamer and a psychonaut, but with a strong interest in philosophical logic, so my head will probably explode,or implode, with it all. But, I try to keep a sense of humour about it all. But, I think that you and @180 Proof probably shouldn't get so cross with one another, because it is an issue which has been explored for centuries and philosophy can be fun. Anyway, my battery is about to run out, so I think I will retreat to bed.

Hello, this thread keeps popping up. So, here I am wishing for reincarnation at 2.45 in the morning. But, at least I haven't created yet another thread.

I have a fluid approach to the topic. At times, I side with the materialists, because I see disembodied existence as problematic, but I keep an open mind but I do believe that it may not be as simple as many think. My own acid experiment made me wonder if there was a lot more to reality than people may commonly believe. I am not convinced that anyone really knows the answers, and, who knows, the ones who argue so firmly that death is the end could be in for a shock. But, if some kind of life after death exists, let's hope it is good.

I would like the idea of reincarnation to be true,cbecause it is not a disembodied existence and it would allow for experimenting in having more bodies rather than just being restricted to having one. The theosophists think that the person goes into some kind of state after death, and, then, moves onto being born as a new life form, most probably another human being. I would like it to be true..

What I think could become very complicated in this discussion thread is if the idea of philosophical plumbing, and the social contract, lbecomes a general discussion about how philosophy should be a basis for changing politics. I think that is far too wide because there are so many philosophical perspectives and individual voices, but we will have to see how Banno wishes to develop the thread really. It may be more of a brainstorming exercise, but I thought it the focus was intended to be more of a critique of Midgely's idea of philosophical plumbing.

If the discussion is about philosophical plumbing, I think that, so far, it points to how complicated it is, especially in relation to the idea of the social contract. It seems like trying to remove the pipes and cut off the water supply if it simply about trying to overhaul the social contract, which is more of an implicit assumption. I am sure that the social contract is problematic because it has not been negotiated fully, but if it was just replaced with one that is decided by a group of people, we would end up with something which may be artificial, and I am sure that it would end up needing to be worked upon. So, I think that the idea of philosophical plumbing is best seen as a metaphorical one for thinking about ways to improve upon ideals, especially in the application to politics.

You specify the role of individualism in depression as if human beings are really in a position of being able to follow their hearts. Even though depression is a complex topic, especially its diagnosis which is culturally variant, I think that you are missing the way in which even though we live in an age of supposed individualism, I think that for many it may feel that it is the exact opposite. Many people may feel that they are in an overcrowded, competitive world and that they don't really count for much, or have real identity. I think that in the Western world, the significance of the individual is becoming lost, and we are becoming mere numbers. Obviously, this varies so much, and I am cautious about generalisations about causes of depression, but I do believe that on a cultural level the insignificance of the individual affects many people in a detrimental way.

Yes, I think that it is about juggling so many factors and it would depend on what group of philosophers. It is not as if they agree, and even though the philosophers are important, would this exclude those in related fields, such as the social sciences and humanities? Another problem is that if it were philosophers, or even other academics, they might be elite, and lack diversity of race, gender and other aspects of difference, so it would seem that these factors would need to be taken into account. Aspects of inequality are on many political agendas, but thinking of solutions is an ongoing process.

Also, it would depend on what countries were involved, because there are such varying politics and social circumstances. If it was international we would end up with all kinds of conflicts, and I am not sure that a one world government would work.

For this reason, I think that the idea of philosophical plumbing is a useful concept, and even the questioning of the social contract is an interesting area for thinking about, but the reality is so much more complex. Hopefully, the ideas of the philosophers can be of importance, and part of the problem is that such ideas are marginalised anyway. But, I think that while social change is important and worth thinking about, it is more of an organic process.

I think that a lot of people, in philosophy and other disciplines are genuinely interested in better alternative ways of social life, but in some ways they remain as dreams. I think that part of the problem is that while people come up with ideas, life is so unpredictable, and people are often thrown into dealing with the immediate and competing demands that life throws at them. Life doesn't wait for the philosophers to devise better answers. It is possible that the ideas discussed may be able to do be translated into practice in some ways, but it seems likely that what would happen in practice may be very different from the original ideas conceived. For this reason, I think that any ideals about change have to incorporate an understanding of uncertainty and unpredictability. It is hard to know to what extent life is reactionary and how much can be planned for social practice in the face of uncertainties.

I guess that I have always thought that it is the 'I' of consciousness which thinks, but it may be that it is not that straightforward really. The I is the identity by which we put it all together, and I wonder if even whether an actual ego consciousness exists, and whether this is equatable with the I or not. The 'mind' thinks but trying to work out the logistics is not that easy.

I will remember that, but I do feel that I do wish to read some, if not all, of Hegel's book.

I read the linked article, and I thought that it was impressive. What I thought was good was the criticism of the constructs which people take for granted, such as society. I think that Midgely does relate the idea of social contract with the concerns of where humanity is going, based on tangible aspects of real life. A really good quote in the article is,
'It may even be possible for our species to admit that it is not really a supernatural variety of Lego, but some kind of animal.'
I think that this is useful to think about because human beings have thought that they are in the position of dominating nature. How much control do we have, or should we have?

Midgely also says that philosophers should 'stop imitating Hegel.' I am not sure about this because I have not read that much by him, and was planning to read his, 'Phenomenology of Mind', shortly. However, I think she is right to emphasise the importance of distinguishing the literal from the symbolic, saying, 'Myths are stories symbolizing important patterns.' I think that I first became aware of this when trying to understand the Book of Genesis with Darwin's ideas. It seemed important to understand that the Biblical creation accounts were handed down stories about origins, and I am amazed how, even today, some people take the creation stories so literally, as if they were written by newspaper reporters. I do believe that when religious or other sacred texts are being read it is important to be aware that they are based upon symbolic levels of understanding.

Okay, can we leave it there. I am about to go to bed and we don't wish to derail this thread.

Obviously, that debate is going on in the other thread, but what I got a bit worked up about was your view that philosophy is simply about experts being seen as having knowledge because they are the experts.

Thanks for the link. It looks useful, and you definitely love dictionaries.

Absolutely, I am about to go to bed and don't wish to end up having nightmares about words transmogrifying into monsters.

I would agree with that, and it was really an abstract discussion, but in reality the use of terms does depend on the context in which they are used. Really, I think that in some ways the ideas have to be understood historically. However, I do believe that ideas about morality and ethics have changed, so there is a need for understanding of this progression being reflected in the meanings of the terms.

I think that this debate about philosophy plumbing applies to the discussion which has just taken place on the thread on the meanings of the term morality and ethics. It may be that some of the pipes of the academic elite have become corroded and clogged. Some serious heavy plumbing is needed to clear out all the decay and gunge, in order for ideas to work in the twenty first century.

What I believe is that there is a danger that concepts are thought about in a concrete and static way. I was just reading 'A Short History of Ethics', by Alasdair Macintyre. He argues that, 'to analyse a concept philosophically may often be to assist in its transformation by suggesting that it needs revision', and I would say that this is something that applies here in the thinking here. So, I wish that the academic experts could begin to see the need for being able to be more progressive.

But, I won't trouble myself too much, as life has enough stress and strain without getting too worked up over word definitions.

Really, I am not going to keep arguing my point, but what I do see as being a problem is the view that there are 'experts', who have the last word. Also, dictionary definitions are useful, but they are brief. But, I do think that it is worth bearing in mind a point arising, early in the thread, how moral was more of a preferred choice of term within religious contexts, and ethics within the secular.

But, really I just raised it for thinking about. It may be that many will agree with you, or not think that it is worth talking about. I am about to log out for the present, and we will just have to see if the discussion is finished here, or whether anyone else joins in further. I am interested to see if others agree that experts have decided that moral and ethical are identical, and if so, I am happy to accept that.

I am not saying that I don't respect your opinion, but we can see if anyone else contributes to the discussion at all. I see it as a topic for exploration, because the usage of terms does affect the way the ideas themselves are understood and interpreted.

The psychiatrists I knew were open to debate. In the first place, I simply raised the topic for discussion, and I am not really concerned to prove a point. If you are an academic of such importance I respect your opinion, but don't that it gives you the authority to come up with the one and ultimate opinion. I see this being in contradiction to the true spirit of philosophy. I believe that in order to make your case you would need to look at forming an argument rather than just claiming that you are the expert.

But I am not aware of other professionals thinking that they have exclusive knowledge. For example, I have worked with consultant psychiatrists, including professors, and they don't try to argue that their knowledge and expertise about mental health is superior to that of all others. The way you describe it makes it seem as if truth is decided within ivory towers.

I can see that it is worth being aware that psychologists have a different training, but I am still not sure that it means that only academic philosophers have the authority to have an opinion. Even if you are an 'expert' it doesn't mean that every other expert would agree with you because in philosophy, the whole purpose must be about discussion of ideas, or otherwise there is no point in philosophy at all.

Thanks for finding a useful article, because I do think that there are probably differing opinions on the matter.

So, do you have a Ph D and peer review in ethics? Also, I am sure that the academic philosophers are worth listening to, but I would have thought that within academic and other philosophy discussion it is all about the interchange of ideas rather than ultimate deliberations about the meaning of terms.