I certainly haven't found many philosophy discussion groups in England. I did have an informal one to go to in someone 's home to at one point and I am still in touch with one person in the group. After lockdown eases I am going to have a good look to see if I can find any others. Of course, we do also have the possibility of starting them. I know that my local library has art and writing groups run by volunteers. So, when libraries reopen, if I have the time I may try to see if I could start a little philosophy discussion group. Perhaps, other people on the forum would wish to set up discussion groups in their own locations, but obviously it is a very different form of exploration of ideas than writing on a forum.

I believe that it is a good idea to start a thread based on the ideas of Julian Jaynes. His work gets mentioned occasionally on various threads, but have never been explored fully and do have profound implications for the understanding of the emergence of human consciousness historically. I like your summary of his ideas because I didn't get a chance to write down the ideas when I read the book.

Aside from the implications for understanding human consciousness, the ideas of Jaynes do present a challenge to the medical model of psychosis, especially schizophrenia. However, I am not sure if you are interested in that area. It was in that context that I came across Jaynes' ideas. It was a patient in the acute psychiatric admissions ward I was working on who introduced me to it. The particular patient was enthralled with it, but most of the staff seemed to think that it was ridiculous, and they seemed baffled by my long discussion of it with the patient himself. While the staff on the ward I was working with were dismissive of the whole idea of the bicameral mind, I do wonder how psychiatrists view Jaynes' work generally.

I think that you are right to say that philosophy as an interest is a peculiar one andI like the idea of it being ' a praxis of interrogation', and, of course, we are speaking of the interrogation of ideas. It does seem to involve war between ideas. I also think that the implications of your post is that we take an interest in ideas from philosophy, but probably the title of philosopher has to be earned. This makes a lot of sense, and it does seem that this probably should apply to such titles as writer and artist too. Perhaps one has to go on a quest to become a philosopher, but, hopefully, the quest would be philosophy itself, or wisdom, rather than for the status of being a philosopher.

Based on my experience of working in England, it is hard to balance the emphasis on quality of patient care and statistics. I think that it fluctuates, but both are seen as important. At the moment, we have government funded healthcare, and I just hope it continues. Certainly, managers have an emphasis on high quality care, but this is also bound up with a concern to meet standards and targets in order for funding. But, generally, staff members in mental health care usually strive to give quality care in the settings which I have worked in.

I do agree with your point about whether or not one makes a living out of being a philosopher being an important marker. I can remember saying in a thread on art that I would define a professional artist as someone who makes a living out of it. However, I am aware that in some ways it is a materialistic evaluation. I would use such an evaluation to dismiss myself as not being a philosopher, but not in my view of others.

If I am reading someone else's ideas, my view of their work would most definitely be based on the quality of their ideas and writing and it would not matter whether or not they had earned any money for it. As far as philosophy is concerned, I think that it is probably hard to make money out of it unless one is a tutor. Even if someone writes a book, I would not imagine that they many philosophy books make a lot of money, unless they become bestsellers, which may mean that they would have to be popular.The most popular philosophy books would not be the best quality ones necessarily. It seems that philosophy in its quest for knowledge and truth , and, probably some other disciplines, may turn the values we usually base ideas of success upon upside down.

Yes, it is funny, because we can hope that being good looking won't be the essential attribute required to be a philosopher, even in this time. I know someone who seems to make decisions about who to vote for in local elections on the basis of who is the most handsome. We don't want philosophy to come down to pin-up posters to put up on the wall. Socrates can be the role model for the philosopher, in appearance, with no airbrushing required.

I am not sure of the exact details of what can be done for the environment, such as energy, because while I read a certain point of science that is not my background, and it is very specialised. Even amongst professional philosophers it may be that they do not have sufficient knowledge of matters such as chemical engineering. Generally, I am wishing to gain more knowledge on possible solutions, including energy solutions and sustainability.

Another related issue is the sphere of influence. I don't know what role or work position you have because it affects one's level of influence. I am not saying that if we are not in prominent positions we have no influence, but it does have a bearing on how much people will listen to us.

I do believe that the brink of catastrophe is one of the biggest philosophical issues of our time, although not the only one. I have been in a s number of discussions on this site on the topic. I see it as a topic to be addressed by philosophers, scientists and politicians. I think that one of the biggest problems is the petroleum crisis which is going to occur. From brief interaction with you, I know that you see science as the solution. I am not wishing to dismiss the findings of various scientists, but I see it as complex because politics comes it to but the scientists have different political persuasions rather than one unified perspective.

I think that what your post points to, apart from the very real threat of global catastrophe, is that all the different structures of knowledge and power interact. Politics comes into science and philosophy. As far as philosophers, or people interested in philosophy, are concerned, there is a danger that global catastrophe may not be looked at fully. I do wonder if one of the reasons why people develop philosophies of nihilism is because they see the possibility of the end of civilisation. Certainly, I believe that the reason why people often choose antinatalist positions is because they believe that the future will be unbearable.

Personally, coming from my amateur philosophy position, I want to see environmental concerns on the agenda, but I am interested in many other aspects of philosophy too.

I think that archetypes are central to our lives. I did a one term of a course on mythology. I think that it is a whole field of study in its own right. My English teacher was the first person who got me interested in it. I find books such as James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and Robert Graves, 'The White Goddess' as very interesting, but possibly more on a cultural level. But, I won't recommend too many more books for you to read. Sometimes, there are so many interesting books to read that I spend so much time reading. But, obviously this seems to be part of my mythic journey and probably yours too.

I think that speculative metaphysics is central and is what makes philosophy so interesting. It is this side of it which gravitates and, keeps me transfixed, in reading and writing on this site.

I am definitely not in favour of philosophy being the exclusive territory of the philosophers. I am approaching the topic as a person rather than as a philosopher. However, I do think that as human beings we can gain so much from philosophy, and it is for this reason that it is worth reading and thinking about philosophy. In one of the earliest comments, @TheMadFool made some important points about the whole way in which the development of thinking is central to the pursuit of an interest in philosophy.

I am not saying that the view is suggested is one that is the best possible one, but I think that it is worth reflecting on, because I do think that many people do believe that science can provide all the answers and that philosophy is almost like an unnecessary appendix. Personally, I think that it is worthwhile for philosophy to be knowledge based. If anything, I think that it has plenty of dialogue with science, but is perhaps not enough with other wider disciplines such as anthropology and the social sciences. I would imagine the best possible philosophy to be able to be truly multidisciplinary in its scope of knowledge.

I have just found one definition of philosophy which I find interesting, and it is from George Stuart Fullerton(1859):
'The philosopher is a man to whom is committed what is left when we have taken away what has definitely established or is undergoing investigation according to approved scientific methods. He is Lord of the Uncleared Ground, and may wander through it in his compassless, irresponsible way, never feeling that he is lost, for he has never had any definite bearings to lose.'

I am sure that is a definition which many present day philosophers would challenge, because the questions of science are embraced. But, I find Fullerton' s statement because it is about looking at what questions cannot be answered by direct reference to factual knowledge.

I do think that what it means to be a human being could be seen as a central question because it is essential to each person. It is one which permeates our lives and cannot just be answered by the people who are ranked as the philosophers.

I do wonder if the finding of happiness and even the other one have moved into becoming more the task and scope of psychology more than philosophy. Before psychology emerged as a separate discipline in its own right the psychology of happiness was covered in philosophy. However, the in ancient thinking philosophy was concerned with wisdom and this probably is more of a philosophy concern, rather than one which can be covered in psychology.

You raise an excellent question which could be seen as a subtext to the one I am asking. However, I am not sure that I have the knowledge or authority to answer it myself alone. It could be a thread in its own right, but as it is so interconnected to mine I will edit my title to include this.

I think that there is probably some difference in philosophy and mathematics as academic or general pursuit, although I know that there is a philosophical dimension. But, the difference which I see is how differently the two play a direct role in our lives. Maths is relevant for financial accountancy and for statistics in life and the people who go into these are probably mathematically trained. We use maths in daily life.

However, philosophy involves all the big questions of life after matters in the whole way in which we understand life. That is why it is questionable if should be left to the academics. Of course, I asked the question of what is a 'real' philosopher, and it is possible that the academics may consider themselves to be the 'real' ones, especially if they have a title of professor. However, they write in academic journals and apart from students of philosophy it is unlikely that many read their writings, although that probably applies to maths. But, as philosophy is at the heart of human existence it seems that the official word of philosophy is detached from the world of most people.

As it is, the philosophers are writing in journals and even though they may see themselves as important perhaps they only play a marginal role..In particular, during the time of the pandemic, I am not aware of philosophers having a voice, despite all the ethical issues which are abundant. Really, the politicians have replaced the role of philosopher, as being the ones who evaluate the facts and knowledge arising in the sciences.

Your question makes me feel so sad because you are speaking of how someone who is considered as being important will have still be seen as being so after death. Sadly, many people who are probably clever and have a lot to contribute may not be remembered much at all, except by family and friends This is so variable.

Of course, the idea of being seen as important is a worthy one and it does give some thought to making a lasting contribution. However, some great people, like Van Gogh, only received recognition after death. Generally, it would be good to think that one 's thoughts will have meaning for others and, of course, it used to be that wisdom was passed from generation to generation. But, I think that this is probably getting lost, as culture becomes more and more fragmented.

I do agree with your emphasis on how we engage in philosophy all our lives and how, in many ways, we can all be philosophers. Of course, what we think is unlikely to be noteworthy. What I do think is central is people being entitled to freedom of thought and expression. At the moment, all of us are in the position of having a lot of information and are in an excellent position to partake in the philosophical quest.

It is hard to be sure what will happen in the future. It probably comes down to education and material conditions. For example, at the moment, most of us but not everyone, has access to some internet access. But, if poverty becomes widespread this may mean that people cannot afford computers and smart phones. So, access to information is dependent on material circumstances. Also, the whole power structure has a bearing upon knowledge, starting with the media and what people are guided to think. So, even though I suggested in my answer to the Madfool that we are able to think for ourselves, in some ways, I think that many people do look for expert opinion and are told what to think, rather than being in the position of forming their own views.

When you speak of being noteworthy in thinking, it is true that most of us do not have thoughts which stand out from the crowd. However, even this does have some social and political dimension. That is because aside from whether our thinking is of quality, certain ideas are likely to be accepted or rejected because they are ranked by others and by those in higher social positions of power.

I see 'what to think' and 'what to think about' as being completely different. The first would imply that there was a set body of knowledge which lead to certain conclusions. On the other hand, what to think about is more of a sketch of knowledge and a certain idea of what are important areas, but with no definite conclusions. In other words, what to think would be prescriptive whereas the latter leaves room for one to arrive at one's own conclusions.

One obvious example I can think of is when in nursing, the nursing code of conduct is prescriptive. It lays out a set of guidelines which are to be adhered to, and these are not negotiable. In contrast, a module on the medical ethics on my course in Social Ethics looked at basic set out an agendas of discussion and basic arguments, like the deontological vs consequentialist positions but it involved room for arriving at one's own conclusions. I know that this is applied ethics, but it is still derived from philosophy.

The particular significance which I see is the scope for being able to develop one's own ideas and I do think that this has particular bearing on us as amateur philosophers. We have centuries of profound philosophical thinking before us and people in academic positions, but are able to use knowledge to develop our own individual viewpoints.

While there are likely to be certain people are considered to be the 'real' philosophers, I do think that every human being is entitled to develop their own ideas. If philosophy is seen as the domain of the experts of knowledge it takes away the power and freedom of all human beings to think their own thoughts. Of course, no one can tell us what to think because we have our own thoughts, as private. However, on a social level, there is a whole way in which people who not seen as experts, and not in positions of power, can have restrictions on the expression of their own ideas and views.

Thank goodness we have this forum. It does give us so much scope. We get so much opportunity to share ideas with people internationally and on such diverse topics that it does seem better than many courses. Also, there seem to be discussions from so many angles on every topic in philosophy and the possibility of creating innovative ones too.

I answered your reply amidst some others and looking back on the thread just now, I realise how important your points were. Obviously, there are various ways of determining success in some understanding of philosophy and it may not matter if one is considered to be an officially a philosopher or not. Who really has the authority to decide who is a philosophy and who is not, ultimately.

However, as you say, in exploring our interest in philosophy, it does seem that, the philosopher would develop the ability to think. You stress that it would involve knowing how to think. You also said, 'What to think ? But I wonder if you really meant what to think about. That is because rather than a specific form of reasoning being developed, it may be a basic agenda or sense of focus. I also wonder if it would be about actual answers, but a whole approach to knowledge, because the answers may shift in a accordance by new knowledge and facts.

Perhaps my problem is that I just don't have the right armchair. I just can't wait until coffee shops are open and I can go back and sit on a comfortable chair, reading my book and leading the life of an armchair philosopher.

It's a good quote, but I have never heard of Jim Harrison? Is he a singer or poet?

I imagined you having some kind of community of philosophers, so I am obviously wrong. If only..

Yes, it is interesting to know how many people on the forum would care what the 'snobby' philosophers would make of us. I think that it would be a varied picture because the nature of discussion varies so much. But, everyone who is using the forum logged into the site labelled 'Philosophy Forum', and chose to join, meaning that some kind of interest in the philosophy is the common denominator.

I am aware that you do believe that the academic world of philosophy is important, but also the whole demystification of ideas in general. I think that it is about getting the right balance. I am obviously not opposed to the importance of academic philosophy and do agree that there needs to be some kind of lead from the academic. This applies to all forms of knowledge. If there was no lead from universities and people with some kind of training, it would be a situation of people being able to come up with any ideas.

How philosophy is viewed and practiced probably varies across the world. You are in America and it may be that there is some kind of culture in which philosophy is recognised outside of academic circles. In England, I am not really aware of open forms of exchange of philosophy outside of academic life. People study philosophy and are expected to get jobs which don't involve any philosophy. So, philosophy is seen as remote from life and the study of it is not really seen as training for any further pursuit of philosophy. It is elitist and most bookshops only have a small philosophy section. Of course, the internet opens up possible sources of information, but having access to it doesn't mean that people know how to interpret the ideas which they have access to. I studied modules of philosophy, but apart from reading books, I am not aware of any kind of venues for philosophy discussion. Of course, there are other fields of discussion of ideas and philosophy can be brought into these in some ways.

I am not saying that I would wish to become a philosopher and I do see myself as a complete amateur, enjoying discussion of it, but I do think that philosophers often seem detached in ivory towers, remote from the affairs of real world. Of course, this could be that there have been such giant figures in the history of philosophy, that it is seen almost as a sacred domain. Also, it could be that in this information age of facts people don't seem to aspire towards becoming philosophers because it seems shrouded by unsolved mysteries.

It does seem that many people do seem to express their imagination differently to the way they do as children. I have run art groups for adults and have found that so many people are afraid of drawing and painting as adults. It does seem that children enjoy drawing and unless they follow some kind of art course, they tend to be afraid to experiment. From what I have seen, this seems to be partly connected with fear of lack of ability but I do think that it is connected with a change in the use of imagination. It does seem that many people seem to be accustomed to drawing pictures and writing stories as children and abandon this around the time of adolescence. I wonder how much of this is related to development and how much is related to education.

Your question as to whether Picasso or many other artists visualised their works first is interesting. From my own experience of making art and some friends who create art it can vary. The idea may be visualised first or may be created spontaneously. I know that William Blake had visions but I think that it is rare. Of course, the whole process of creativity can resemble the shamanic quest, with some journeying into alternate states of consciousness, but this does not mean that all people who create in the arts do this. It is likely that most fiction writing which involves creation of characters involves a certain amount of fantasising. I have come across the idea of fictional characters described as aspects of the self. And, fantasy writing does involve the creation of imaginary worlds, so that does seem to involve conjuring up fantasised otherworldly. And, of course the people who appreciate the arts probably do so for the way in which they are able to be moved into fantasised creations.

I know that your remark about the 'secret handshake' of the philosophers was a joke, but what does worry me is a possibility that the idea does express some degree of truth. While expertise probably counts for something, I am sure that there are complex power dynamics and an elite hierarchy within establishing philosophy circles. I have known people who are professors, because they have doctorates and published their writings. I wonder what such individuals make of a site such as this one, which gives the amateur a platform for expression and exchange of ideas.

I have worked in mental health care and I do believe that the direction that aspect of healthcare is going towards is recovery focused models of care. Hopefully, my fears of totalitarian authority are not going to come into medicine and the direction will be one of empowering people to make their own decisions about health. In my last job, in inpatient psychological therapies, a central idea was aiding the person to become their own therapist.

I won't get into the discussion of being a real philosopher on this thread because I just couldn't resist the temptation to create a thread on it.

However, I agree that life involves putting on masks. Like you, I feel much more free to express my thoughts on this site than in real life. In group situations I am extremely quiet and find that I allow others to dominate over me. I find that power dynamics are far less on this forum and it makes me feel far more free to take risks. I sometimes have dreams of reading and writing on threads and wake up checking my phone. Perhaps that my life is a bit impoverished, but I do hope that the experiences of interaction on this site will help my confidence for activities in life. I don't want to just lead a virtual life.

I do agree that it is better to define someone else as a philosopher than oneself. If a person chose to adopt the label without a socially negotiated reason for doing so it would seem rather vain. I know of people who describe themselves as being an artist or a writer, and this seems to be based not on work but on their self perceptions. Of course, anyone is entitled to define themselves subjectively, However, there is more glamour or romance in choosing to call oneself as a writer or a philosopher.

I think the tension which I see in the various replies is over the whole level of expertise. As Toothymaw points to issue of seriousness. Personally, I see philosophy as a serious matter, but just try not to take myself too seriously. Tim points to the importance of ability, and Madfool to the way in which training in thinking is important.

In considering the whole area of training, many people study philosophy, but there is not a pathway to becoming a philosopher, aside from an academic career and the academic career world of philosophy can be seen as elitist in some ways. Of course, there is scope for any person writing philosophy. It would be possible for someone who had not even studied philosophy to do so, and the person could be self taught or learned to think analytically in some other discipline.

What I think is wonderful about this site is that it is possible for us to all express our thoughts. Probably most of us consider ourselves as amateurs, but that there are probably some who have a professional background, such as teaching philosophy. However, do believe that it is important for philosophy to be developed as a serious pursuit of thinking and analysing that is not just confined to academic circles.

Yes, this site is a treasure and it gives an unofficial platform for philosophy. However, I imagine that there some people on the site who are published writers. But when I speak of pretending to be a philosopher, I am also question, with a certain amount of humour what does it mean to be a 'real' philosopher? I come from a perspective of thinking that social reality is constructed. This goes back to a classic sociology text, ' The Social Construction of Reality', by Berger and Luckman,(1996), which depicts the whole way in which social life is constructed, and personal identity, and, we inhabit 'symbolic universes.'

So, we could say that we are all social actors. The internet gives opportunity for people to create identities different from the ones they live in daily life. The majority of people do use the same names they live by. Also, most people don't include their photo. I am taking a certain risk because I am not anonymous and my photo is included and, there are a few others who do so too.

While this site is not famous, it is on the internet for the public to view. So, in a way, what we write is on the borderline between the unpublished and the published. I find that borderline to be fun. It makes it an experiment in which what is read, or not read at all if the thread fades and get lost. Perhaps the lost, hidden threads go into the collective domain of hidden knowledge, or esoterica.

Of course, the internet is a site where people can be bullied or harassed. On this particular site, there are probably cliques and there are dramas, like when people get banned. I do believe that the site has an unconscious. Here, I am drawing a parallel with the psychodynamic understanding of organisations. This goes back to the work of Menzies, who looked at the way anxiety abounds or is contained in organisations.

I also know that it is recognised in art psychotherapy that when people are working separately in art therapy groups, but not watching each other, that when work is viewed by the group afterwards, often common themes seem to emerge. When I read various current threads, I sometimes notice similar themes and ideas appearing, as if they have arisen organically from the unconscious of the collective psyche of the forum members. There are probably deep layers of fantasy as well, or to use the psychoanalytic spelling of it, as phantasy.

I think that the internet just becomes an available outlet for finding all information, whether it is porn or factual. But what I think is happening is that many people use the internet for finding relationships too. I think that the internet doesn't just provide our fabric of fantasy but our whole discourse with the real world. In many ways, it is a way of retreating into a private universe.

However, I am not saying I see the internet as all bad because I am so pleased to have found this site. Prior to finding it, I did not have much chance for philosophical discussion. However, when I was working in mental health care, when I was on duty I was aware that the patients used to come to me for deeper discussions about life. I was aware that some staff thought that was a waste of time. I got comments implying that I should be helping the patients tidy their rooms instead or doing meal preparation. Most people I know regard philosophy and related fields as being of no importance. I remember a work colleague visiting me in my home and suggesting that I throw away most of my books. She didn't even think that I should bother taking them to charity shops. So, based on my experience of the interests of most people I know, this site has given me some form of expression. I am able to live out the fantasy of pretending to be a philosopher.

I think so many people see porn as a way of exploiting people, but I am not sure that the people who are involved feel exploited. I do believe that many people who are against it see it as a way of fuelling unhealthy sexual fantasies. However, that attitude seems a bit outdated now. I am inclined to think that most people who use porn may be using it as an outlet because they have so little in life.

I have never bought any porn and my funny experience was going into a local shop and asking if the shop had a music magazine called 'Uncut' and the shopkeeper became really angry and indignant towards me. I think that he thought that the magazine was was some kind of gay porn of uncut penises. However, aside from actual porn there is the whole spectrum of the erotica and the erotic in the arts.

Thanks, you are quite right. I think that there has been some interesting discussion with you and the few others who have replied. Generally, I was probably not expecting the direction of the thread to become go in the direction of esoteric symbolism. My threads often seem to go that way and it is probably because I have a leaning towards the esoteric. But, really I wished to open up a wider philosophy the imagination an fantasy The whole way in which sexual fantasies and dark fantasy is interesting. One area of possible discussion would be the way in which fantasies of hatred develop and manifest in life.

I am not really too bothered about tangents, but I just can't speak or read Spanish. However, I guess it is possible that there may be some Spanish speaking people who are on the forum. However, I would be a bit annoyed if they began writing in Spanish on the thread. As far as the actual discussion goes, it does depend if anyone else takes any interest in the thread. The way it seems to happen is that there are so many threads created daily and unless they catch on quickly, they often fade away. Funnily enough though, they do pop again in sometimes.

The link on Freemasonary symbolism looked interesting but it was not in English, so I don't know if you sent the wrong version by accident. Generally, I am interested in esoteric symbolism, including alchemy, but I am not sure whether or not it is relevant to the thread I started. I guess it does explore unique mythical narratives. However, whether I would wish to explore this is not depends on whether you or other people are interested in discussing it.

It is interesting that you can think how you began playing the warrior role and how it is connected to fighting. One aspect of my playing rockstars which has resonance is perhaps the idea of the shaman. Many of the rock singers who were part of my childhood world, such as David Bowie, seem to be living the archetypal shamanic role. I have felt the shaman archetype to be central to my life, the idea of healing oneself and others.

I do agree with you that it is potentially problematic if the experts have the ultimate word on what is real and what is not, in being able to label and diagnose what is 'psychotic'. Having worked in a psychiatric hospital, I am very familiar with that way of viewing. At the moment, I am taking a bit of time out of that area and enjoying freedom from a view which can be fairly rigid. I have some experience of running therapeutic art activities and do believe that gives more scope for a wider scope for viewing. I see it as very questionable if any 'experts' try to define a correct way of seeing.