I do agree that it is possible to be ecstatic as a nihilist. However, I believe that it is complicated because for some the nihilism leads to suicidal despair. Some people with despair over lack of meaning in life do present to mental health services, looking for possible interventions. We could ask to what extent is despair a mental health problem?

Yes, I agree that nihilism and depression are rather different, although in some cases there can be an overlap. Nihilism is a way of seeing the world and I have had points of that and it is distinct from clinical depression. However, on a couple of occasions I dwelled on the absence of meaning to the point where I felt depressed. The sense in which I say that I felt depressed was one in the I felt unable to do my usual daily activities.
That is how I consider depression to be and it is as if the world loses its brightness and colour.

It is interesting that you say that you believe that whether your nihilism will come again will depend on stimulus and your own behaviour because that is more how I feel about potential depression than nihilism. However, each person's personal perspective is a bit different. Nihilism for me is more about a philosophy of life, whereas depression is my mood related to events, mainly those in my own life. However, I do see it as a whole blurry spectrum and that is why I brought nihilism into a discussion about therapy.

Do you work in mental health care? I have too, until last May. I am unsure if I plan to go back into this. However, I do experience depression at time, but and do seek help. I think that many are struggling currently but are probably suffering alone. You say about psychosocial interventions but I don't think there is much of that available for people currently.

One idea I would also add for people to think that is one exercise a tutor on a therapy course I was doing. She asked us to imagine what miracle we could imagine what would change our lives. After that, she suggested that we pretend that this miracle had happened and how we would live following that. I found it a useful exercise and it was meant to be a way of thinking of dreams coming true. I found it really got me thinking about actually beginning to overcome obstacles.

What I have become aware of recently is how public policy and government are so bound together. It seems that so many people want protection from the government and when regulations and policies are brought in they just accept with hardly any questions. This whole attitude makes me wonder what will come next, because it would be so easy for any government to introduce any extremely oppressive legislation.

I do believe that we have to try out different options available, and if they are specific psychosocial options we don't have automatic access to them. We may have to be referred for options, including therapy, unless we are able to afford it privately, and the medical clinicians often act as the gatekeepers in deciding what may be offered.

From my experience of working within mental health care, the diagnosis of depression is sometimes complicated. If lack of enjoyment and despair come without other symptoms of clinical depression, such as feelings of low esteem, difficulties sleeping, changes in appetite and other activities of daily living the diagnosis of depression is questionable. In some cases, two different psychiatrists may assess someone and come to differing conclusions. Also, it all depends on what is treatable. Some people seem to respond better to treatment, especially antidepressants, than others. This is sometimes at odds with clear diagnosis categories, and seems to come down to biochemistry. But I am not saying that there is not more to it, such as the wish to feel differently.

I am familiar with depression because I have experienced it personally and I have worked with people experience it in in a mental health care. However, I am pointing to a blurry area for questioning: where do you differentiate between unhappiness and clinical depression? Anhedonia is a very real part of it, because lack of enjoyment colours our whole experience, but I think that it is a very complex topic. The question of nihilism is also about the experience of despair.

I am really concerned about the way people are being offered online therapy. It does seem to suggest the idea of people alone in rooms tapping away on screens, and right now I am aware that I am doing just that. However, I feel that I have fun on the forum for I wonder if that would be the case in online therapy. I am not sure that therapy is meant to be fun, or whether philosophy is is meant to be either, but I cannot believe that it is meant to be all drudgery. There has to be some sense of satisfaction or fulfillment of some kind or another.

When I spoke of the context of the person in the community seeking some kind of support, or therapy, I am thinking of the way in which people's needs may only be met on a shallow level in many communities. I am not saying that everyone's needs are identical and basic human interaction may be the most important for many. However, it may be that family and community life create more conflicts than outlets for some. Often, going to a GP or mental health team may occur within those circumstances.

I think that both medication and life circumstances are important. The question is where can people begin? Medication is meant to be a starting point from which a person can begin to be balanced enough to begin to make changes. However, we could question whether this always happens. Ideally, therapy is a means to explore ways in which that can happen. But I believe that you are right in querying therapy as meaning change rather adjusting. I would imagine that this is a complex spectrum. Perhaps, some would see being without medication of any kind as ideal but it may not be realistic.

So many people in the population are on medication of some kind or another, such as ones for basic physical health, and, surely, medication for depression and anxiety is just as valid. One of the biggest problems for many, including myself, is the being able to sleep and that seems to be a complex mix of physical and mental. I am not sure that it can be addressed fully by therapy alone.

I definitely believe that finding the right therapist is important for most people and that can be a long and arduous task. I have known some people going from therapist to therapist, desperate to find the right person. However, I do wonder how much is about our own individual approach and how much we project onto the expectations of the therapist. I do believe that it is partly relates to where we are and what exactly we are looking for in therapy.

You are the first to speak of the way in which I have mentioned nihilism in my introduction. I am not sure if it is a red herring or not, because I do think that the experiences of nihilism is a position of despair, but it is not simply the experience of depression, or is it? I once knew someone who sought enlightenment and could not find it. He struggled, with extremes of feeling high and low. He spent so much time in bed and felt flat and without any meaning. This seems to me to be the ultimate expression of nihilism. When someone gets to that point it is questionable to me how one can rekindle meaning. If the person was to enter into therapy it is unclear to me whether that would happen or not, because it seems that some powerful insight ot source of inspiration needs to be conjured up for that person. The individual may be seeking this or have gone past looking, but the question is where can it be found?

I think that the question you raise is really interesting. Do we wish to be made less sensitive or more. In a way, medication and even pleasure can have the effect of numbing us. Personally, I have been described as lacking emotion at times, and too emotional at others. Both seem bad, and I am not sure which is worse. Of course, it is also about how we express emotions. When I was on an art therapy course, there seemed to be a lot of emotion and that felt false. However, the point where we switch off emotions is also worrying, and how do we navigate the way to the right balance for our own mental health and that of others?

You are right to say that therapy 'can be a lifesaver, and it can be useless or damaging.' I think that is probably the whole basis for my raising the topic for philosophy debate in the first place.

Actually, when I did undertake psychoanalytic therapy, at times it made me feel much worse about my life. I heard some therapy tutors say that sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. However, I did wonder how far this has to go.

Also, the whole need for therapy is based within cultural contexts. Perhaps, people have no one to turn to in the community and that is why they end up seeking therapy.

You are right to say that there is an incredible amount of stigma surrounding mental illness. I do believe that this prevents many for seeking support.

Also, alcohol represents such a whole area for questioning. So much of social life is embedded in a culture of alcohol. People grow up and are socialised to begin to go to the pub, almost as soon as they outgrow the pub. Alcohol is the legal narcotic. I also tried weed and acid, but the whole process of getting these was a horrible drama in itself, going to strangers and being sold substances which were fake.

But I do believe that so many people are struggling at present, with mental health issues. One of the latest trends is therapy online but I am not convinced that this will be enough for many who are struggling. Also, mental health cannot be separated from real problems in the physical world, including poverty and homelessness. Obviously, the real practical problems need to be addressed but I think some therapy is needed, because people need to be able to talk about their experiences.

Actually, I am extremely interested in esoteric Christianity. I do believe that there is so much inner truth conveyed in ideas such as the transfiguration of Jesus. Probably, the truth of this as well as the mystery of resurrection transcend the whole body and mind problem within philosophy. I am inclined to think that the Eastern perspective of thinking probably has more to offer in understanding the resurrection rather the viewpoint of Western philosophy, as conceived within the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm.

I think that we are in a time of great contradictions. Personally, I am not denying the importance of the need for restrictions but I am inclined to think that the whole role the government has played in implementing this is questionable because it has made many people feel extremely oppressed. In England, just about everything apart going out to the supermarket has been for forbidden under government law. I don't think that there has ever been such a time of law and order in recorded history. People are feeling like caged animals.

I know that you are not speaking about the current rules and regulations and they may vary from country to country. However, I have wondered if this whole situation might have been better responded to if people had been asked to take care of themselves and others rather than it all being enforced by the government.

I think that I was adding my comment while you were replying. The one thing I would say in response to your last post, is the whole issue of side effects of psychiatric medication. The newer antidepressants are better, but so many medications have effects of weight gain and potential for triggering diabetes.

Nevertheless, untreated mental illness can have a terrible impact, including suicide risk. It would just be so much better if people's difficulties could be addressed at a stage earlier, with a view to people talking about stresses, which when unprocessed, can so easily translate into serious mental illness.

I would just wish to add, by commenting upon your remark about drugs and alcohol. I am not someone who is opposed to some kind of drug experimentation. Most of us are curious to find ways of relaxation. One of the biggest problems connected to using weed is the way in which it is recognised now by many as being a trigger of psychosis. There is the whole field of dual diagnosis of psychosis and substance misuse.

As far as alcohol is concerned, I would say that many people find it helpful in relaxation and for social interaction. However, I have read that there is a rising problem of alcohol misuse in the pandemic and we may not know the full extent at present. Pubs are shut down but when I am in supermarkets I see people piling it into their trolleys. The people drinking alone, with no one to talk to me may be a whole group needing therapy at some point in the future.

I know that your argument is that the idea of individualism as a form of government is seen best in the light of a future cycle of humanity. I think that it would be extremely difficult to see how getting rid of government would work in the current chaos. However, do you think that there are any interim measures which could work, or do you think that it has to be a matter of keeping government as we know it, or do you see any scope for other possibilities in our present times?

Personally, I think that what works is very individual. I remember one art psychotherapy saying that the most important aspect of therapy is having the right therapist. Perhaps, part of this is finding someone to relate too, but I would also think that it has a lot to do with the attitude and knowledge of the therapist. I do believe that becoming a therapist is not a task or profession that should be entered into too lightly as it calls for such depth of understanding.

As far as medication goes, I am not against it if it is necessary. That is because emotional suffering does have such a profound influence upon biochemistry, especially Serotonin and other neurotransmitters. When people get to the point of being psychotic, I do believe, based on my experience of working in mental health care, that it would be detrimental to work with therapy until some antipsychotic medication was offered to address the psychosis at the biochemical level initially.

There is also the question of many other secret societies and movements, such as the Templars, the Rosucrucians and the Cathars. I think that these may have been more esoteric than the Freemasons, and from what I have read the Freemasons had some initial connections with building.

Dare I say it I am listening to BTS. Despite liking alternative music I have a soft spot for boybands ranging from Take That to One Direction. I even have some albums from early boybands of the seventies, including Slik, who was the band Midge Ure was in before Ultravox, and I even listen to the Osmonds, as well as The Jackson Five. I also like a bit of Blur and Oasis.

I think that most people would prefer to be referred to as 'he' or 'she', but a few like the singer, Sam Smith, like 'they'. Probably those who use 'they' are trying to make a statement and if everyone was referred to in that way it would even take away the possibility of such a statement. Generally, I think it is highly unlikely that enough people would choose to be called referred to as 'they'. One art is to try to write or speak without using pronouns at all; it is extremely difficult and has to involve repetition of the person's name. In writing a sentence referring to a general human being rather than a specific one, I think it works to use the term they, rather than clumsy use of he and she.

Aside from pronouns, the whole question of titles is another related one, and I really can't see how they serve any purpose at all. It used to be the case that titles not only showed which gender a person is but whether a person is married or not. However, a lot of women use Ms instead. I believe that this was controversial at first. The writer, Zoe Fairburns, wrote a short story about how she was one of the first to take this on board and described how she was on a bus and how the bus driver was querying what this meant, as if there was something strange about her sex. One recent addition which I have come across is some people have started using the term Mx to be gender non specific. Pronouns are necessary because we have to refer to people, but I just can't see what purpose titles have at all and I think they are outdated and unnecessary.

Really, I prefer to see most people the Bible as allegory. Generally, I do see 'The Book of Revelation' in that way, but I was brought up to see it more literally. However, I have moments where I slip into thinking about the whole Biblical end times. However, I do believe that there have been many points in history when people have thought it previously. I do believe that the early Christians thought it was within their sights. But the 'Book of Revelation' makes so much more sense as a symbolic prophecy rather than as a literal one.

Of course, it is true that all kinds are wars have been fought in the name of religion. We have the whole history of fighting for Christendom. As well as that, we have the terrorism, such as the tension and Catholicism and Protestantism in Ireland. There has been the whole tension between the Christian dominated countries and the Islamic nations, although that may have been about oil too. As well, we have the Islamic terrorists and the war against that. One could go on and on.

We could say that violence and war is a problem for human beings generally, but certainly we can see that religion has given rise to it in many ways. However, this is in contradictions to the ideas of the founders, such as Jesus's message of turning the other cheek. There is also the contrasting approach, of non violent protest, as expressed by Mahatma Gandhi.

I think that you are right to speak of the social dimension to religion. This can be about rituals and community life. The rituals around baptism, marriage and funerals play such importance for so many people. I also know that for many Hindus the marriage ceremony is not just a day but much longer, perhaps up to a fortnight. Rituals are such a major part of life for people and often people who would not go to church ordinarily go for these. I once went to a funeral for someone who did not have any religious beliefs. It took place in a church, but without any prayers at all and it seemed so stark.

So many people do rely on church for social life. I went to the youth club at my church a few times, but I didn't really enjoy it. A lot of people even go to church events to find potential marriage partners. It is such a feature of community life and one which is unavailable to people currently. At present, in England, churches can open but there are restrictions on the numbers. A lot of people are attending church services by Zoom, and whoever would have imagined virtual reality church services.

It is interesting to see some input on Hindu and Buddhist ideas. I am saying that not just from my own issues but also thinking about how this reads when people log into the thread, especially if someone is new to the forum. My aim with the thread is not just to sort out my own concerns but for the thread to be the most possible open minded and broad discussion, taking in diverse approaches. I can't believe that I am the only person on the forum who has struggled with worries about religion because there is so much overlap between religion and philosophy questions.

The aspect of Hinduism you have presented is new to me because I have only read about the Theravada school of it, as there are so many traditions. I have read some books on Buddhism, but once again there are many schools, and so much written about it. Sufism is the area of Islam that interests me and I would like to read on it. The main writer who I have read on the comparative religion is Ninian Smart.

I do believe that you are right in saying that Jesus was speaking about his imminent divinity, and I don't think that he was saying that he was the Son of God, as the only one son.

I do think that we are probably like a load of crewmembers on a ship of fools. I prefer you quoting Plato to the Bible. I am rather sensitive about ideas such as the beast and 666. This probably goes back to groups of evangelicals who used to try to tell me that the music I was listening to was the work they the devil etc. Even before that, as an early teenager I got in such a state over the passage in the Bible over the unpardonable sin, which is the mysterious sin of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit'. One of the reasons I am such a fan of Jung is because I discovered through reading his autobiography when I was in sixth form that he worried that this. Later, I read that Kierkergaard worried about it too.

Religion, especially Christianity, can create such fear and I have known people, including friends, who have experiences religious psychosis. I have come across people who have believed they were the Antichrist. I am glad that I never developed that delusion. However, I do have a certain sensitivity like I felt a bit anxious when I came to write my number 666 post on this forum, and fortunately it wasn't about anything particularly contentious.

I am not really opposed to Christianity at all, just find it conjures up so much fear, but I feel so really stressed if I go into an old church. The new ones don't seem so bad, because so much light seems to come through the windows whereas I get such a sense of the uncanny in the old ones. One could say that perhaps I should not have written a thread about religion if I have such a sense of fear, but I do think that we do not to face our fears. But I did get worked up when I got the quote about the beast of revelation.

Aside from issues about religion, in other threads there is quite a lot of thinking that we are coming to the end of a cycle, if not the end of civilisation. However, I do think that the fundamentalist Christians are too literalistic in their interpretation of the Bible. I am genuinely sympathetic to most belief systems, including atheism, because it is a tenable form of thinking. But, you are right to say that we are like crew on a ship of fools and I realise that you are just someone finding your way as well, so I am not annoyed with you, and I am interested in Simone Weil's ideas.

Thank you for inputting the quotes from Lao Tzu. I definitely didn't set up this thread for it to be one to be dominated by Christian thought. So, when I had a long quote from the Bible, about "the beast and 666' late at night I felt really unnerved. At a couple of points in my life this aspect of religious thinking made me begin to get unwell mentally. Even now, I do get a bit 'wobbly' if people start to preach to me.

I suppose that by starting this thread I was likely to get a certain amount of 'preaching'. Some of the responses have been good, but I am a bit disappointed that there has been less constructive dialogue. Apart from brief discussion about Buddhism, there has been little discussion about other religions. I am personally extremely interested in other views, ranging from Hinduism to Jainism. It could be that people on the forum do see religion mainly about the big divide between believing in God or not, in the conventional way. Or, it could be that people who fall outside of this, just avoid the religious threads. I was not looking for some kind of watered down discussion but some more diverse and independent thinking.

Some people find the Bible so comforting, but I find it the exact opposite. Even last night, I got stressed out by someone writing a long quote about the devil. But I do think that the fundamentalist religious people and their interpretations are the ones who really lead people to atheism.

Yes, I do find approaches such as Taoism more easy to take on board, but I do find my views hop around from one view to another, which is why I gravitate towards comparative religion. Really, I am constantly thinking up more and more questions. Perhaps I have philosophy disease.

I have just seen your latest response and perhaps it is religious fundamentalism which I find oppressive, but there are so many fundamentalists. Perhaps, I am an agnostic, but I do have sympathy with the underlying message of Christ and the Buddha.

My aim in starting the debate was to break down the divide between the religious and the atheists and I think that the whole field of comparative religion enables clearer possibility of this. You speak of the danger of getting lost, but, my genuine view is that I see the mythical perspective of understanding religion as the one that makes sense to me, because I don't see it as completely false or true.

What I don't understand is the way in which the whole area of religious thinking has to come down to those who see the central issues viein literal ways(Christian or other views), or the other alternatives of atheism. Both seem so extreme. The reason why I admire Jung was because he was one of the thinkers who was able to break down this division, but I am sure that there are many who can see that the whole question of God does not have to be a definite yes or no. I feel almost alone on the forum because I am not religious conventionally, but not an atheist.

The reason I believe it is important to understand myths is to understand the recurrence of themes underlying religious experience. I don't think that any one religious belief system has the whole picture of truth. However, I do think that the questions underlying religions are a central human need and are of importance. I don't think that there are any absolute answers but I do not that these issues are central to philosophy and for living.

Your answer seems to be a rather literal interpretation of the 'Book of Revelation.' I don't come from that angle. That was how I thought when I began university, but I see things in a much wider way. I do think that we are at a critical juncture in history but I don't interpret it all in a Biblical way.

I think that the better question would be is what evidence do you have to suggest that Jung was a 'crank'? I think it is difficult to measure his ideas and probably the only way you could do this would be to measure the way in which his ideas or Jungian therapy have a positive impact on people's lives.

Really, the reason why I brought in his idea of the collective unconscious was because it is seen as a useful construct for thinking about recurrent themes and symbols, underlying myths and religious narratives. Do you know of any better way for considering them?

Hopefully, those who study history seriously wouldn't go by Hegel's ideas on history. I did an evening course in anthropology and it did approach the whole subject from a historical angle.I think it is always a bit of a distortion when the various disciplines are split off so clearly. Of course, it is not possible to study all the disciplines, but the ideal may be if people read outside of their own specialised fields. I believe that it's important to read as widely as possible and see all the crossovers in thinking rather than just view from a narrow angle.

I definitely believe that there has always been some kind of perennial philosophy in existence because human beings do need to find meaning. There is a great need for answers. You are right to say that in the jungle people were far more aware of rhythms and cycles. We have been taking modern life for granted and grumble if the transport is behind schedule or even if the Wifi does not work as we expect. It is so easy for us in this technological age to lose sight of wisdom.

It is interesting that you should speak of the idea of 'descended from above'. In some perennial accounts, including that of Blavatsky, there is the idea that evolution in that way. Rather than human beings having descended from apes there is the idea of the first human beings as angelic beings who were with more subtle bodies, and how after the fall of Atlantis, fell into the gross bodies. Blavatsky and others have developed these ideas and there is the whole 'new age' myth of the process of 'ascension.' I went through a period of reading books on this which suggested that human beings could ascend again to the state of the human beings prior to the fall of Atlantis. However, I am aware that there is very little evidence for its historical existence.

It is possible to get carried away with these myths but it does present a radical alternative way of seeing than we are accustomed to and it does give some hint of a possibility of conscious evolution. It is hard to know what the idea of conscious evolution does mean exactly. I have read a little of Henri Bergson.

Also, I do believe that the majority of human beings only use a very tiny part of human potential. Here, I can even mention another mythic idea in 'new age' thought, the idea of DNA activation. I have been to the mind, body and spirit festivals in London, in which there are workshops offering this. It is based on the assumption that people only use 2 strands of DNA and the rest is known in science as junk DNA, but it is not really junk at all. The workshops were about enabling additional strands of DNA to be activated to release untapped potential. But I won't go on any further as it will probably sound like gobbledegook to many reading it. But, it is an alternative way of seeing to conventional narratives. Generally, I do think that the whole new age movement draws upon the mythical ideas of perennial wisdom.

It is interesting to hear that you are a graphic designer. I thought about training in that when I left school but decided to follow other studies, but I have pursued art to a lesser extent in certain ways and from a different angle. I used to illustrate a poetry magazine at university, and did do an evening course in illustration, which was focused on the technical aspect of drawing and painting. However, I did go on to do some study of art therapy and that is where I probably began thinking about getting in touch with the symbolic dimension, especially as I did undertake personal therapy with a Jungian therapist. So that forms the background to the approach I come from. Also, I was in discussions about exploring other dimensions in art on a thread about whether art was creative about 2 months ago.

But, probably my basic idea is that of tuning into the collective unconscious. Do you believe in the collective unconscious? This is probably where it fits into the discussion with myth, because these involve archetypes, and these are also central to the narratives within the various religious traditions.