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.

I will look it up, but I am wondering is that the Chicago journal? I am not trying to argue definitively, and if it is that they really are identical, surely it is worthwhile that I have raised the debate because it does appear that some other people use the two terms slightly differently. I will try to research the matter a bit further because it may be that even academics are not in complete agreement.

I agree with you, and that was the kind of way I was thinking about when I wrote the thread. I think that morality and ethics are slightly differently angles but closely interconnected. Of course, people use the terms as identical at times, but I just think it is worth being aware of the subtlies of the ideas, for clarity of thought.

I think that it is not that simple, because we have imperfections. I believe that it is important to have principles, but I would not say that I feel that I am righteous. In particular, life throws so much stress and horrible things at us, and it is sometimes hard to just keep together in some kind of balanced way. I do focus more on thinking about the consequences of actions rather than on a sense of being morally good. I think that I never felt 'good' because I have inherited a big Catholic guilt complex.

I am not really against religion, or in favour of it, but I did feel that the whole emphasis on sin was stressful. When I was 13 I read the passage in the Bible about the unforgivable sin and became convinced that I had committed it. I spent about 6 months worrying about it. Also, I have known so many people who have experienced difficulties with religious beliefs affecting their mental health. But, really, I keep an open mind towards so many ideas generally, and in making informed ethical choices.

My own experience is that often life circumstances involve so many competing factors, so I apply reason to be best of my ability. I make mistakes, but I try to learn from them, and I do believe that life is about learning through trial and error.

I can see your idea of morality being a philosophy and ethics as science as useful in some ways. However, they probably cannot be polarised, but it does seem that ethics may be so much more than personal feeling, and based more on rational thought and knowledge drawn from sciences.

I am sure that the ideals about right and wrong should be able to be about establishing a just social order, but I don't think that it always works that way in practice. We only have to think about the Biblical remarks about the hollow morality of the Pharisees. That showed how much hypocrisy there can be.

And, our own times are so much more complicated because we are seeing the collapse of many systems of thought. We are in the fragmented world of post truth and postmodernism. Or, it is probably not that clearcut. If anything, we are in a cut and paste philosophy era, trying to put the fragments together. In some ways, morality or ethics can be a bit of make it up as you go. It seems to be that in many ways, even those who read philosophy, are improvising, and probably struggling.

I would have been interested to know where your quotation came from. But, yes, it is interesting to think about whether morality, or ethics can become based on empirical principles. Of course, to some extent, the basis of morality is central to legal systems, and other aspects of the social system, even involving political ideals. For example, ideas such as the welfare state come from underlying principles of morality and ethics, with a focus upon the outer conditions of human life.

Yes, I think that this question about wisdom and ethics is interrelated with wisdom, and my own threads are almost like tangled wires really. But, I guess that so many of the threads on the forum are exploring ideas which branch off from one another, rather like a tree.

I do believe that ethics was a central concept going back to the Greeks. Perhaps, it went a bit differently in the West as a result of Kant. He did stress the categorical imperative, which focuses on universalisation, but, in some ways his system and some other moral systems could be interpreted as being rather insular. Wisdom is important but, it is possible that when the emphasis is upon righteousness it can lead to self righteousness.

I am not saying that thinking about the outcome of actions alone is the only thing that matters, but thinking about consequences does mean that more thought is put into decisions. After all, choices in life often involve conflict. I think that the thinking about decisions is a way in which people may go beyond the surface. Rather than just sit back feeling comfortable, and righteous, the conflicts of life may be less focused on self and about higher priorities of reason.

I just began thinking about it while I was reading and writing on the thread about 'wisdom'. It may be that some people see the differentiation as not being important, but I do think that how we use the terms makes a difference to the way we think about morality or ethics. I do believe that a main reason why have moved into the more common usage of the term ethics is related to the secular context of life.

However, I would not go as far as to say that the emphasis on morality, as opposed to ethics only involves whether religion is involved or not. It is partly about ideals and human life. I think that morality is also more closely connected to the idea of sincerity, as involving honesty to the self, whereas ethics is more about authenticity, in which life is seen as involving us as social actors. In some ways, morality seems to involve the mastery of self, while ethics is about trying to perceive the farreaching effects of actions. But, of course they do overlap, because we are both beings with consciences and, with awareness that what we do affects other people and other lifeforms. I think that ethics involves a more analytical stance, or of stepping back from moral feelings.

I really raised the question because I believe that thinking about the two words or ideas is useful for reflection on the way we go about making moral, or ethical, choices.

I am not sure if I can think about putting the mind into sets. I am not even sure if mind can be contained, because even though it arises and is interconnected with the body, in some ways it is like a universe. But, while the idea of consciousness surviving physical death can be as problematic as it would involve us being dusembodied, like phantom beings hovering in a void, I do think mind can reflect on itself while alive. Of course, it is a part of the mind, as in the narrative voice of the 'I', which reflects, but this is the cohesive aspect of consciousness, as in personal identity. The rest of consciousness is probably more like a flow of incoming impressions, and the narrator has to sort out the jumble, or edit it. I think that this is the main element of mind involved in reflecting on itself.

I definitely agree with you, and think that is probably why Kant's use of the term ethics was different because he was writing in a time when religious thinking was the main framework. I do think that the idea of morality was more related to sinning, such as ideas about adultery, masturbation, or even drinking alcohol.

I think that it is hard to say that an act which is unethical is moral, such as stealing. But, it is not so easy to see all actions which are about personal conduct as being unethical. One aspect of this may be that certain thoughts may be seen as immoral, but it would be extremely difficult to argue that specific thoughts are unethical. The term ethics has more of an emphasis on the outer effects of action, rather than in connection with the intention and goodness of the person.

I agree that they can be used in the same way, even as in a code, such as The Nursing Code of Ethics, which is more of a set of guidelines to be adhered to by all nurses at all times rather than a framework for debate.

However, I still maintain that the choice of the word immoral and unethical are slightly different in connotations. The word immoral is used more with certain views about personal behaviour, such as by those who see certain sexual acts as being not acceptable, and it is more about standards. The emphasis is usually on the nature of acts as the focus. On the other hand, unethical is used far more to point to certain effects of action on a social level, based upon specific arguments, such as acts of war, inequality. Of course, there is a blurring of the use of the word, but they are different in subtle connotations.

In some ways, I agree with you that it can be a choice of term, and I am aware of some historical basis of the interchangeable use of the word ethics and morality, such as that of Kant. But, I do believe that there is a certain distinction in the development of the study of ethics. My original studies were in social ethics, and, strangely enough, I can't remember the use of the two terms being really spoken of clearly, but in most aspects of the course the word ethics was used. I do feel that the word moral is generally reserved more for a description of a one specific view of how one should behave, and when I choose to study social ethics, I did so with a view to dialogue and debate about issues.

I aggravate myself, let alone anyone else. But, I think that the people who are the most smug aggravate so much because they cannot see their faults. Maybe, there is even the possibility of being smug with faults as well.

Perhaps we need to learn to be scouts for ourselves and others, to prevent us getting lost in the fog.

I probably wrote that sentence months ago, but I am sure that a lot of the ideas about immortality are based on the fear of death, and perhaps those who cling to life so strongly are those who are most afraid of the 'inevitable'. Really, I am not that afraid of non existence, because I don't have an all powerful ego. I think that the best ideal is not to fear death really, as there is so much potential suffering in earthly existence.

Interesting idea, the philosophy of boxes as containers. We may be boxed in, or we may even wish to break free from such boxes, and maybe bags are less rigid containers of ideas and identity.

I am not really trying to say that wisdom is purely subjective, but that the outward quantification of ascribing it to individuals could be problematic. It may be that we can perceive wisdom but that is a whole approach to life rather than any specific act or views. I really do think it is easier to see folly in others, and in ourselves, because it glares, and it leaves a trail of misfortune and chaos.

I think that you are right to point to uncertainty as a starting point. It may be that for people from many eras, long before Wittgenstein that this was a key aspect for thinking about all else. It may be that the more we try to predict and formulate on the basis of what may be expected that this will let us down.

I think that I was really trying to speak of the different contexts in which ideas about morality and ethics arose. Morality was often based on ideas of personal duty, while ethics was based more on ideas of larger concerns about effects of action. This was partly based on the shift from a deontological approach to a more utilitarian one,but I think that it was a bit more subtle than this divide. I think that it is about the underlying basis from which ideas stem, but it is also about underlying systems of values.

I have looked at you link, and I do think that poetry can capture aspects of wisdom so well. It may be about the finding bridges between intuition and rationality in our understanding. Also, when I was reading the thread, I became aware of one poem emphasising the importance of mindfulness. I think that this is important as a concept in thr philosophy of wisdom and is also of relevance to the practical aspects of human living.

But I do believe that we have to be careful of slipping into mystical muugidwash. I think that this applies to the many philosophies, ranging from the religious to scientific materialism. I believe that it is best not to start from knowing nothing, but seeing the basics of knowledge, as a starting point, but we probably are best not to try to find the complete answers because that would almost be about inflate us into an omniscient position. I am not really arguing with you, but just trying to frame our lack of knowledge. I am not sure whether we have too little or too much knowledge, and how this possible conundrum bears on our understanding of reality, especially in relation to the idea of life after death.

I agree that there is so much which we cannot know for sure. Some go back to the real basics, while others go into so much speculation. Personally, I am not sure where we should go because both approaches have limitations and I believe that the juxtapositions are important, but they don't seem definitiv. Explorations of ideas about consciousness and personal identity, beyond the material, often seem to be so vague, or elastic, and this may be an intrinsic aspect of consciousness and thinking which makes it hard to equate, or differentiate it from the physical basis of reality, as we know it.