I think I do agree with your perspective of faith, in its true meaning. What we are told to adhere to as faith by others is false faith really, whether it is the dogmatic one of people coming from a religious, humanist or any kind of one which is prescribed by others. We have to find what makes sense for us individually rather than just take other people's word for it, uncritically.

I don't think that reality is completely solid, not even tables, although they are probably more solid than other aspects of it. I really started to think it was not so solid about 3 years ago when I was reading about the quantum world.

However, I do believe that the idea that it is not solid is one which is not really shared by the majority of people. I have worked in psychiatric nursing and I am just wondering what reaction I would have got by the staff I was working with if I had said that to staff I was working with. I am inclined to think that many would have thought that I was going a bit crazy. But, I think that it mainstream logic, not even philosophy which clings to a picture of reality as being so solid.

I am not sure that the comments in the thread have changed my ideas that much. But, I am not saying that the physicists should have the final word, because there is ' bad physics'. But, I think I probably never thought that reality was that solid going back to when I first read Walt Whitman and William Blake.

I will tell you my thoughts on fiction and on faith. Fiction is about story and our life events consist of stories. Even though fiction consists of fantasised stories I believe that they often resonate with the ones in our lives, even if the fictional ones are often more dramatic. They probably need to be written more with more drama than we could possibly deal with at most times, not just to make them worth reading, but also to make points strongly enough. Also, fiction involves the emotional aspects of reality and moves us in that way.

I also think that a lot of people who write fiction do include some aspects of their real lives, but probably have disguise them carefully. For instance, if an author is writing about a relationship they had experienced, it needs to be done in such a way that the character does not resemble the other person if the writing becomes published or it might become rather awkward.

As far as faith goes, I think that it has to be able to withstand the test of rationality. That is probably the main problem with telling people that they should not question, because for many people that is rather difficult, or not particularly helpful psychologically. I am sure that I was told many times by people that I should not doubt or question. In some ways, that made me think that the things I was being told to believe in were a bit dodgy in terms of credibility, because otherwise they would not be in danger of crumbling if subject to scrutiny through reason and analysis.

I have read your post and the discussion about it.
In some ways, I agree with what you and Austin are saying with the point about the table. A couple of weeks ago, I read, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and he speaks of how it is possible to get into tautologies in trying to develop metaphysical aspects of philosophy. He points to the way in which metaphysics is really just speculation.

My own thinking is that I think that it is extremely difficult to come up with any definitive answers about metaphysics, because it is hard to come up with any specific evidence. However, I think that most people, do question how reality works at some point. I think that it may be more about how it works rather than anything else. The natural and social scientists come up with many explanations and theories, but I think that for many people there is still something missing, an unknown element. I am sure that more advances will be made, but I am not sure that it will really capture the invisible aspects of life fully.

Thanks for your detailed response. I will look at it tomorrow and reply further, because it is is after 1am.

Of course, I come from my own limited experience, but it does seem to me, from reading and experience that often the debates in philosophy can be about repetition of the ideas of the past. I do not see any answers, but do believe that the exploration of lived experience is extremely important.

I am not convinced that life is about luck entirely, because there are so many aspects underlying experience, but I do wonder whether these will ever be addressed fully, even within philosophy.

I can see the danger of making questions bigger than they are, and I think that it about seeing the limitations of philosophy as a discipline. However, I think that your whole approach of philosophy as lived experience is important. My own view is that philosophy needs expanding, rather than becoming caught up in models from the past, or even the most current models of science and mathematics, in order to embrace the whole dimension of living experience.

I wrote a comment but I am deleting it because I don't think it fits in well on this particular thread.

Thanks for your latest post.What you are saying, and Hadot's book does sound interesting because I think that we probably do need some kind of exercising of our minds or consciousness to understand reality. I am sure that this goes beyond all reading, even though it is worth reading books to see how others have found answers. However, the answers about the ultimates of reality are not actually in the books themselves, but have to be found in our consciousness

The goal of understanding the nature of reality, is probably illumination, or enlightenment. And, I am not sure that this is just the entitlement of those who are of any religious, or particular philosophical outlook. But, I do think that you are right to say that some kind of exercise, such as meditation is likely to help, Meditation is important, I believe, but it is not easy and I often find I procrastinate about practising it whereas I am sure that it is probably more important than many other forms of activity.

I like your sets of reflections, and I find the one which stands out is 'we are not what we think we are.' It seems likely that human beings probably develop interpretations of themselves and humans in general, some which deflate and some which inflate themselves. A lot of the thoughts which we have may be wrong, or, at least, only very partially true.

I think that what you are saying is a similar kind of thought to what I was thinking about when I began the thread a couple years days ago. It is the whole puzzling area arising from the personal embodied experience, looking outwards and engaging with the so-called objective world of reality.

I think that part of this is what is discussed as the intersubjective aspect of existence. But, it is not merely about interaction with other human beings, and shared meanings. Aspects of life are inanimate and others are animate, but we are having to understand all these different parts, as well as the question of ultimate reality, and if that exists at all.

Strangely, even though I am aware that Hegel's
'Phenomenology of Mind ' is not phenomenology in the sense that most people understand it I have a copy and I think that it may be one of the next ones I read. I have read some of, but not all of 'The Philosophy of History', and definitely believe that Hegel is essential.

I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, although a lot of social science. I also met so many interesting people, although we had all just left school. I have studied and worked in London for some time, but apart from a couple of people, I think that most people think that I am ridiculous reading the books I do. When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site.

I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture.

I had not thought about it as schizoid, but on some level it involves splitting. It is interesting though how people who become psychotic really go into the concrete interpretation of religious experience. I came across so many people with religious psychosis in mental health, and I have friends who have had breakdowns involving religious delusions. It is possible to lose all rationality really.

Anyway, I am about to log off for now, as it is about midnight...

While there is a division between the empirical and the metaphysical it is a bit of a knot because one has to think in some kind of metaphysical concepts about the metaphysical. Also, ideas about the metaphysical are often based on empirical observations.

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction.

In a way, I see such a process of selection as connected to the philosophical approach, because it is meant to be about really exploring ideas to their fullest, and going into deep and analytical engagements with them.

I am not sure that it is really possible to go beyond the empirical and metaphysical division, but have wondered about it. Really, I am not sure if one would be able to do so without becoming omniscient...

I think part of my own mind is such that when I read a book, from many perspectives, ranging from atheistic nihilism, to Christian, Greek or many kinds of writers is such that for a certain amount of time, I really feel able to become absorbed into that worldview. So, what we was trying to say is that I can usually see a variety of possible views and I juxtapose them differently. I don't know why but I probably have too much of an open mind. I always see things from various angles, almost at the same time. I think it was partly an approach which I cultivated but also the one which seems to come most naturally. I am just surprised by the way in which so many people do seem to keep fairly fixed approaches, religious or non religious.

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that 'Reality ...Life...is beyond any rationalization ...because...it's a paradox.'

I think that your question is to me, and I would argue that my answer would be neither a,b, or c, and probably more like:
Believing that x, y, z are possible explanations, with fluctuating per cent emphasises on any one of each from time to time, and probably no time when any of the three variables is ruled out completely. I don't see this as absolute, because it is even possible to bring in a v, and u occasionally

Yes, I am a bit of a seeker.

Yes, I agree that the question of reality may be more of a central question which all may ask at certain time, and not one which has a clear answer. I have been thinking for some time that phenomenology is possibly the area of philosophy which I should be moving towards in my reading.

I think that both of us, and probably a few other people are hopping around the issues of physicalism and perception in many of the threads which we are writing in. My own belief is that it is because these are the big issues within philosophy. Perhaps they are really the acute red zones of philosophy, just as much as nihilism, because it is possible to go round and round in circles thinking about them.

I am not sure that I agree with your picture of the human condition, but I think that we have already touched on this slightly. However, what I am interested in and curious about is your title which asks about deterioration. Are you coming from an assumption that the human mind was better at some point in the past? Is such a deterioration something which happens in life due to experiences? Or, is your title referring to some kind of deterioration which has occurred historically in culture?

I have read your post and find it interesting. I think that I may have seen some of the quotes, but certainly not all of them I would imagine that Einstein was rather ambiguous in belief although I have not read enough on him as a person to know completely. Hopefully, some people on this site will have read more, although when the person cannot be asked directly it is hard to know for sure, depending on the reliability of the sources.

But, when you say that you think that he was probably an agnostic, you might be right, but even then that is trying to categorize him. I come from the position of being neither a clear believer or an atheist, but I don't see myself as having a fixed position. I am sure that even when I write on this forum, at times, what I am saying sounds almost like atheism and other times like I am a believer in God. However, I think that it is because there is so much to think and wonder about. I hear the harmonies of the spheres in the music which I listen to, even though it is fairly alternative rock.

I am just so surprised that some people can come to definitive conclusions. I think that was the main reason why I started my current thread about religion. I think that it such a fascinating area, although at times I get stressed over my lack of certainty. However, I hope that others will be able to offer further clarity on Einstein's views, or interpretation of them, but I just think that it is best not to try to put Einstein in a box.

I think that I do see it as being more important to look to original sources, rather than just the plagiarism of others, such as Blavatsky. However, that is mainly after 8 months of engaging on this forum and being more critical of source material than I was.

Of all the various groups and movements, Scientology is one which I am less familiar with. However, I am familiar with various new age kinds of ideas such as those of David Icke, or the ideas of the artist Benjamin Creme, who founded transmission meditation.

I went to the last ever talk Creme gave before he died in his 90s, and did go to some transmission meditation workshops. I did embrace some of his ideas, such as the idea of a divine hierarchy of masters, and the idea of channeling. However, the part at which I, and I think that many others too could not accept, was his suggestion that Christ, or Maitreya, was living in East London, waiting to emerge to the world. This would have been about 6 years ago, and, apparently Creme had been saying this for years. So, when I think religious ideas, I do with awareness of how I had some involvement with this particular set of ideas, and when I really decided that Maitreya was not about to appear to the world I felt rather let down.

I think that the psychology of why some people choose to adopt religious beliefs and others don't is extremely complex. Freud spoke of neurosis, and I do think that fear does play a big part. I think that some people think about the religious questions more when confronted by death or deaths of others. I know that stress in life has made me think more about it, even though I don't get to the point of clear answers. I remember how when I used to be on night shifts, which used to seem so long at about 3 or 4 am I used to really dwell on questions.

Now, if I am awake, unable to sleep in the night like last night, I am not just worrying about the actual issues themselves, but how I am going to write about them properly in the various threads which I have started.

I am a little unclear when you say about poor quality threads you are talking about the threads simply in terms of the topic and the introduction. The reason why I say that is when I look at some which seem to start off well by the initial writer, when I look through the rest of the thread, some read much better than others. So, when I think about thread quality it is not simply the start but consistency of the posts within it. I also feel that some of the best discussions I had involved thread topics started by others, which did not start particularly well, but when they developed with certain people's contributions they became outstanding. But, I won't name those threads because the individuals who wrote them may read what I am writing and take offence, thinking that I am criticising their initial thread beginnings.

I have met all kinds of unusual ideas about aliens, fallen angels, devils and God, because my own work background has been working in psychiatric hospitals. I have also known people outside of hospital who have psychotic experiences, so I am definitely not in the position whereby I would suggest that I believe everyone's experiences as completely objectively true. I think that each person's suggestions have to be listened to but not with a view to believing them to be true.

I think that it is far harder to think about the ideas from the past in the exact same way as we think about the ones people describe to us. I think part of the problem is the reliability of the source material. Texts are written in various ways and I do think that if one tries to read them like they were newspaper texts it gets rather messy. I do know some people who try to do that and it doesn't really work because the overall world picture of the time they were written was so different. The biggest difference in the interpretation of the Bible is those who try to take it all so literally and those who see certain aspects as more symbolic truths. But, because there is so much which may be more symbolic it makes it hard to work out the basic facts. There is so little historical evidence apart from the texts, including those which were rejected from the mainstream, especially the Gnostic gospels.

I did read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead' when I was at college. I have read a certain amount about Hinduism when I was a student, but I after that time I became more familiar with theosophy, which looks to links between the various ideas underlying the various traditions, from Eastern ideas to the more esoteric ideas within Christianity. Have you read much in that direction?

I have looked at what you have written and I do agree with the gist of it, and what Philip K Dick says. I think that there has to be certain basic structures which don't change independently of our perceptions. But, I suppose where it does get complicated is, as it emerged in the thread I had on thoughts, is where qualia come in. At that point, there are aspects of objective reality which appear to be more subjective, and, thereby, more related to perceptual experience.

I am not aware of actually having said that I think belief in Zeus is silly at all. I do have some appreciation for accounts of the Egyptians and many early systems of ideas. One account which I think is extremely important for understanding ancient knowledge is Julian Jaynes, ' Origins of the Bicameral Mind", in which the author suggests that at some distant past times, human beings did not see the clear distinction between inner and outer experience that we do and thought that the gods, or symbols of the gods, were literal. I am not completely convinced of Jaynes' line of thinking, but it points to a possible way of understanding ancient thoughts and beliefs.

What I was trying to say was that I believe that there have been some metaphysical accounts which suggest hidden realities, including those of Kant, Plato, Swedenborg and Rudolf Steiner. Those can seem at odds with an emphasis on the observations of empirical reality.

However, I wonder about some kind of possible synthesis. Intuition may be one aspect, but this would require some backing up with evidence to support the intuitions. This is not easy but I was wondering if with the way the new physics suggested less solidity, it is possible to see beyond certain rigidities, with even the possibility that matter is not as absolute, and of more an energetic structure. Of course, there are clear physical laws and it would be startling if they began to change. It would be a bit of a shock if the moon split apart, although I once dreamed that happened. We expect gravity to be permanent on the earth and would get a shock if rather than the seasons altering with climate change, the diurnal pattern of night and day changed. So, we expect a certain amount of regularity, and this is a whole picture of grand design, but even so, it is possible that certain aspects of reality central to empiricism and metaphysics may not be immutable.

I have just read your thread discussion and found it interesting, although you have not raised any questions. So, I am imagining that you are leaving any potential discussion open. What I found most useful was the link about Plotinus, as I have just finished reading a collection of his writings. The idea in the link on this which I thought about is that he challenged the Gnostic emphasis on the fall into matter and the belief that matter is evil.

I have mixed views on Gnosticism, because on one hand I do query the emphasis on the body as being evil. From, my own reading in this area it does appear that the Gnostics almost had a sense of disregard for the body. However, I do believe that the whole emphasis on inner knowing is important. However, I would imagine that Plotinus would probably have wished to hold on to that idea. I also found it interesting to read about Plato's account of near death experiences, and it is useful to think about that in comparison with that of other accounts, especially 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead'.

Strangely, I have always been far more attuned to reflection than facts. I always had far more difficulty with rote learning than speculation. I think that may because I was an only child, so I was spent more time alone than most children. I also didn't like sports, so spent a lot of time reading, drawing and listening to rock music, by the time I was about 10.

I think that we are becoming far ' too technologically correct', as I think we discussed on the thread you created. But, I think that it has a particular bearing on philosophy. People are becoming so accustomed to Wikipedia, and other sources. I sometimes think a lot of people almost treat Wikipedia like the best living philosopher in the world, knowing all the answers instantly. I also believe that the public can edit, it to include latest information. I use it as a basis for an overview of a topic, but that doing one's own research is better. If everyone relies on Wiki as the guide, there is a danger that people will begin to think too much alike, and there will be less creative and genuine thinking.

I moved it back to the front page because Madfool wrote a good detailed reply, just about the time I moved it to the lounge. I think that his discussion is worthy of the main stage. It can always be moved back to the lounge again...

I think that your answer is extremely interesting and was the kind of discussion which I was hoping for, but I will not attempt to answer it just now because I didn't manage to sleep. After your reply, I am tempted to put the thread back in the main discussion chamber. I partly moved it because I am creating too many. It can be a bit addictive, but I do enjoy inventing them as I don't have many creative outlets at the moment.