It is hard to be certain about many of the big questions in philosophy and doubt is important.
However, I do think it is worth taking risks in exploring lines of thinking, even those beyond the conventional ones. What do we have to lose? You ask if 'there is no concession that philosophy being done better (or worse) falls on us being better?' Of course, it is debatable about what us being better means really, but I am inclined to think that the more we explore ideas helps us gain self-knowledge, even if we don't manage to gain absolute knowledge of the big questions, the self knowledge we gain can enable us to live in a more conscious and reflective manner than if we have not thought about the philosophy questions in the first place, and who knows, it can involve stumbling upon new ways of seeing.

So, I am personally prepared to leap into the deep void and discuss all the issues even though I don't claim to have the answers because it is a search for meaning and it seems foolish to just sit back and wait for ideas to arise out of nowhere. Reading others ideas is good, but perhaps we have to test them in our individual, unique ways as well. I see this as an exciting challenge.

I believe that if we approach others on the internet in an attitude of hostility we are not going to achieve any meaningful interaction. I have not been on any other forums apart from this one, and when I write comments and threads I am wanting the best possible philosophy discussions. Obviously, this involves a certain amount of argument but this can be constructive. I did not join the forum for nastiness, to give or receive it. I have seen too much of that in daily life and that has often led me away from groups. So, I wish to engage with others who are looking for genuine philosophy debate and the best option I see is when someone does not seem to be coming from that angle it is better to move on and engage with another person instead.

As you know, I am interested in the whole issue of consciousness after death too. My own view shifts and, deep down, I am not really sure. I do think that near death experiences point to a possibility of life going beyond this one, although I do think that it is possible to enter into heightened states of awareness of without dying too, including out of body experiences.

The other question which I wonder about, although I know that it is not directly in your thread but linked, is what the near death experiences point to ultimately. The reason why I say this is because I had a college tutor once who saw near death experiences as leading to a possible eternity of being in that dimension. At the time, I was swayed towards that idea. However, looking at that way of thinking now, I am inclined to think that that state would not be permanent. Personally, having read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead,' I wonder if the near death experiences is an entry into the bardo state, and would be a period of time and lead to eventual rebirth. Of course, I realise that this is only a speculation.

I am inclined to agree with Freud that suppression of our desires results in the subconscious rebelling. I am sure that Freud had many weaknesses in his ideas. However, I think that if one reads his writings he does have a lot to say that is worthwhile.

The way you are viewing eternal recurrence in the movie based on repeated patterns until one becomes less egoist sounds similar to the idea of karma. Do you think that the underlying truth of the two principles is the same?


I would also say that your view of the essential underlying truth of the principle seems based on the importance of satisfaction. I am just wondering to what extent would this be about satisfying it, or of relinquishing it?I am inclined to believe that we are left with this conundrum because it is not easy to overcome desires, and do we really desire to overcome all of our desires?

Actually, I am inclined to think that life repeats itself until something becomes 'entirely different.' This is based on my own experience of noticing repeated situations and patterns in this life. It is perhaps when we learn certain things from them, that changes and new circumstances occur. I am not thinking that this occurs through some divine hand of fate, but from within the depths of our own consciousness and being, which brings forth shifts in our circumstances.

Welcome to the forum, and I actually wrote this thread about 3 months ago and you are the first person to comment about it. Since that time, someone explained to me how Nietzsche's at some points in his life saw the idea of eternal life as literal and, later saw it more as metaphorical.

However, you are correct to say that at the time I wrote the thread I was contemplating the idea as an objective one. I was wondering what it would be like to live the same life over and over again forever more. Deep down, I probably do see it more as symbolic.

Your idea that if you would not want to live this life over and over again is a sign that it needs changing is one which I had not considered in relation to the idea of eternal recurrence. Nevertheless, I have been in many situations in which I wish to make changes in life and don't always find it easy because obstacles keep appearing stopping the changes. Changes do occur but slower than I would like and they seem to often involve new problems, like knots. So perhaps I am not living the path of eternal recurrence but a mythical life of knots. But the moral you point to is a good suggestion.

I am glad that you found this site and I have found that it has given me a lot of liberty to express ideas since I found it in September last year.

I do think that the idea of valuing liberty is important, especially in giving a sense of empowerment. Of course, you are right to say that it should not be 'used as a loophole to hide crime'.I also like your idea of mainstream media 'as one big obnoxious vacuum cleaner'. I don't watch much television and don't know how or why so many people do, but I do listen to some mainstream music. I do spend a lot of time reading but do listen to music to relax. I find this important because life can be so intense otherwise.

I read the article on Sorokin, thanks. I had not come across him but it does seem that he has some useful ideas. The one which I found particular interesting was the idea of the supraconscious. Perhaps the idea of a higher self is helpful for us for guiding us. Certainly, at times I find that it is as if I can tune into a higher state of mind than ego consciousness. Generally, I think that many people may not be aware of this faculty and it probably gets lost if we focus on television and other social media too much. It may be that this dimension of seeing is the one which enables liberty being seen as just about fulfilling one's own personal wishes.

The activity which I find so liberating is creative writing groups and workshops. Of course, finding the right one is important. I enjoy writing fiction because it gives more scope for juggling bits of self disclosure and creating characters. I do also enjoy art activities, but don't want to go to ones which are still life, and prefer it if I can work on my own ideas. Once, when I was at university I discovered a philosophy group run at someone's home.

It is good that more people are joining in a thread and it was really just a slow starter, but that is probably better than one that is very active but fizzled out within a couple of days.

You speak of the fall of civilisation of Rome, but there may have been civilisations and cycles long before this. I know that continents such as Atlantis and Mu are questionable beyond mythical truths, but they do point to the possibility of many highly sophisticated civilisations before those of which most people are aware.

Even thinking of the history we do know about, it would seem that the Egyptians had extremely sophisticated technology. No one has really come to a clear conclusion about how the pyramids were developed.

We also don't know what technology is yet to come to our civilisation or any future one. If people a hundred years ago had been told about the internet, Zoom and Wifi, they may have said that is not possible. Even with energy resources there might be untapped energy resources. For all we know, energy resources may be enabled through use of resources in out of space or perhaps petroleum will be created in a laboratory. I know that this might sound bizarre but there are things already taking place, such as nanotechnology.

That is not to say that I don't think that we are in a deep mess. I do believe that we may be at the end of this civilisation or even all civilisations on earth, but we really don't know. I like to keep an open mind in imagining all possibilities. What is science fiction today may become a future reality.

I am not sure that happiness is just about achieving goals and desires because many people achieve these and are not happy. Perhaps the Buddha was right in seeing craving as a source of suffering.

However, we are likely to become depressed when we are unable to fulfill any of our dreams and I don't think it is that simple to try to eradicate desires and cravings, even with meditation. In many instances it may be conscious experience of unhappiness which brings us to some awareness of what will bring us happiness. Of course, it may be that when we have fulfilled these dreams that we are not as happy as we thought that we would be, but a certain experiences of satisfaction may be attained, which is far better than the misery and despair of being unable to fulfill satisfaction at all.

You asked what it means for humanity to consciously die. Personally, I would view this as a means of people being lacking in self awareness. I am not sure that we are awake enough, in the sense of being able to always see beyond the conditioning we have experienced and how we are taught to see in the way institutions try to program us. I would say that it is about reflective consciousness and, often, this is not triggered unless people suffer to the point where they need to question and think.

I am not sure that it is just about formal philosophy, because even that can be about reading and regurgitating the ideas of others. Also, some of the most philosophical approaches to life may not be come under the strict definition of philosophy but within other disciplines, as free thinking.

Thanks for your comments. I have been reflecting on the nature of liberty today and I that even though the idea is related to aspects of life in the world, it is to some extent, a whole matter of mindset or perspective.

Yesterday, the whole way I was feeling lacking in liberty was partly a fault of my perception. From the moment I got up I was feeling oppressed by obstacles, including cafes all being shut and the rain. Of course, these were real, but it is all how we view them really. We create our own reality by our own perception. Thinking back to when I had a job, that often struck me as a form of loss of liberty because I was obliged to get up and go to it, even if I didn't feel up to. At least, at the moment I have the liberty to spend time reading and writing in my room. So, what I am saying is that the more we see loss of liberty we create our own oppression.

In relation to Nikolas's point about liberty in relation to loss of grace, I would say that belief in liberty for ourselves does become narrow, if we do see it as something just to achieve for oneself, rather than as for others to. Whether or not we believe in God, in the literal sense, of conventional religious belief, if we seek maximum liberty for ourselves, without consideration for our role of living harmoniously with others and the cosmos, we are developing a view of liberty which is primarily about gratification of the self. I would suggest that any ethics of liberty needs to take a wider view, involving the happiness of others. However, I think that it is best if this belief is discovered for oneself ideally.

Thanks, I will just hope that things will improve in England because at the moment it is all so demoralising and soul destroying. Obviously, all the people on the forum are in different parts of the world, so are in very differing sets of circumstances.

Thanks for your link article. I will read it tomorrow as it is after 1am. I do think that we are in need of culture change to prevent cultural collapse.

Probably our personal circumstances do influence the way we see it all. I am sure that I wrote the thread today because I moved into a shared house with a group of strangers. I am forced to spend time in shared spaces with these people and this seems indefinite because I believe lockdown of indoor venues is likely to last into spring or summer. I go out but can't even find anywhere to read a book because it is bad weather.

So, I feel imprisoned in a room and lacking any liberty. However, while out today I did see many people without any place to live, stuck outside in the rain, so I am grateful to have somewhere to live, but I am very uncertain about the way civilisation is going. I realise that we are living in a difficult time, with the pandemic, but I do believe that human beings are being seen as of lesser worth gradually. I think that it is probably due to overpopulation and we are becoming mere numbers, and of little importance individually.

I quite like your idea of 'Liberty is yourself stuck with yourself'. Having opened this complex debate, with no easy answers, I feel a bit consoled with that point, at least.

I have read the article link and can see problems arising with the idea of liberty in the secular times, but came away from reading without any clear idea of a way forward. Do you see one?

I am in England, not America, but I presume that the same principles apply. How do you believe that the idea of 'might makes right' as a replacement for the idea of liberty will translate in practice?

I am not wishing to stress anyone's rights over and above others. I am just one person feeling depressed and demoralised when I see that people's rights are being eroded. I realise the problems of the time of the pandemic and my biggest concern is just to be able to go out and buy a cup of coffee in a cafe, to be able to read a book indoors.

I can see that current rules are related to the pandemic, but I do see them as paving the way towards a whole way in which a climate of restrictions is an accepted norm, hastening in the ways of totalitarian thinking and regimes.I am not wishing to view this way of thinking as the overriding perspective, but I am not seeing many alternatives in critical thinking at this moment.

You speak of liberty being under threat, and I do believe that is true and that in its many guises totalitarian regimes are being ushered in gradually through ideas of the moral good. I would argue that the whole pandemic is part, but could become a whole basis and paradigm of thinking through policies aimed at high ideals of health and social improvements.

I am certainly not opposed to the ways of going beyond the problems of our times, including the real concerns of the pandemic.But what I am worried about is the way in which this whole area allows for ideas and ideologies which are not in line with the view of seeing the human being as as of importance. I am worried that we are on the cusp of seeing a whole panorama of human freedoms being dismissed and curtailed, under the guise of the common good, and that this is part of a philosophy of control of the masses. I hope that humanity can go beyond the idea of control, to a way of seeing freedom for individuals, in contributing to future of humanity in a less restrictive vision. Otherwise, I daren't imagine what future we are facing.

I began this thread from the starting point of how compassion has taken a backseat in Western materialistic society, and in Western philosophy. I do believe that different writers have used the term differently. During this thread the whole tension in the use of the term has been whether it is about empathy or a focus for acting and I would say that it is a mixture of both. It could be described as a way of valuing and was more predominant in traditional societies and it was more central within Eastern thinking, and it may have been driven out of focus in Western thought amidst a focus upon rationality and technological progress.

What do you think about the idea of the lost continent of Atlantis? I know that Plato mentioned Atlantis. The whole idea of lost civilisations is interesting. We know about the fall of Rome, and about the history of Egypt, but the idea of civilisations before that is interesting too.

But, if it happened, and we became a part of the 'mythic' past it is interesting to know how they would view our world, our history from the perspective of the past. What would be interesting is if some computer hardware and software surfaced and they had access to some information on the internet and tried to reconstruct history of fallen civilisation, from a distant point in the future.

Funnily enough, I have just been having a discussion of this theme with Athena and Ken, in the impersonalised thread. We have been talking about the way this forum enables discussion across countries, as well as the need for creative, intellectual communities.

I have told Athena about how I have found that following University, I have found one of the best spaces has been community education classes. In the last couple of years in London, I have found that more arts and intellectual workshops and groups are being set up in libraries. Let us hope that after people don't have to stick to social distancing rules, all this time of not being able to meet with other people, that people will realise the need for meaningful connections and that this will herald some innovations of discussion groups and creative projects in communities.

I would say that the closest I have ever found to a creative arts based community was at university, especially Goldsmiths College, in New Cross. I know that Julian Clary, Brian Molko from the band Placebo, as well as Graham Coxon from Blur, studied there. College societies were often like little creative niches. After leaving college, I have found joining community education classes has been one way of finding like minded people.

But it is hard to find creative, intellectual communities. It probably varies in different countries and different parts within countries. In London, there are some areas which are more arty, especially Greenwich and Camden Town. I have spent a lot of my spare time in these areas but they are so busy that most of the time I never really got to know anyone on my travels, apart from regular interaction with staff in record and bookshops.

In some ways, I think that it is easier to find little arts based communities within towns and villages. I don't spend that much time in my home town of Bedford, but have found that in some ways it is easier to form more meaningful connections. I have often got to know some very interesting people in libraries. Probably my ideal is libraries with cafes because it allows for people sitting conversing about the books they are reading rather than sitting quietly at desks or using computers.

But, we will have to see what emerges when lockdowns ease eventually. Some things may not reopen and there will be changes. However, it could be that after all this time of social distancing, when people do get the chance to reconnect, that many will be looking for more meaningful and perhaps some creative, intellectual places will emerge for us in our various locations. Let us hope that happens.

I am not sure that I can answer this very well, but I am going to have a go, because no one else has and it might at least get the ball rolling.

The idea of the particle could be seen as cells. Perhaps we develop and multiply as cells, with consciousness emerging in this way. The spark of consciousness is connected to others' cells of consciousness, in a vast amoeba of expanding conscious awareness.

I am afraid that I don't think that I have probably managed to capture a picture of panpsychism which you may have been wishing for. The problem I see is that panpsychism is usually about finding consciousness in the inanimate and even if we try to see ourselves as particles, it is hard to view the human being without any inherent consciousness in the first place. It would almost seem like antipanpsychism.

It was quite interesting to read some of the thoughts of the Dalai Lama on the subject because I haven't read any of his writings, and I don't know why really.

What you said about Schopenhauer and sinners led me to think of how I learned of compassion initially in the context of being brought up as a Catholic. It involved going to regular confessions of sins. It used to be quite scary going into a little confession box and speaking to a priest, who was hidden behind a curtain. I was introduced to this practice at age 7 and even though it used to make me feel anxious, there was always the relief of having been absolved of sin, or forgiven.

The whole emphasis in Catholicism was upon being forgiven and of forgiving others, and I think this did involve a whole sense of compassion towards others, a sense of non-judgementalness towards fellow sinners. Of course, I am not saying that all the Catholics I met were non judgemental. Far from it, and I found the Catholic teachings gave me a lot of conflict. However, I was taught a basis of compassion, especially in the idea of Jesus being compassionate towards prostitutes and other sinners.

Perhaps any genuine understanding of others needs to overcome this projection of self onto others. I have experienced so much of this projection from others and it can be extremely toxic. People always seem to be giving advice and I think that I am allergic to advice It is always based on others' own experiences and ignores the whole way in which we are unique individuals.

I have done some training in counselling and the basic principle of most forms of counselling is the need to listen and not give advice. This makes sense to me, but I know that some people are put off counselling because the counsellor or therapist doesn't offer solutions. Personally, I see it as far more problematic if some one tries to guide another too directly because it is not possible to step inside another's own personal perspective truly.

I would say that understanding of others needs to overcome the attempt to know what the other needs entirely, and keep an open mind, allowing for unique individuality.

I really don't think that we would manage this time of social distancing at all if it was not for telephones and online interaction. My mother relies on 2 phone calls from me daily and doesn't use computers at all, but has television. I do feel that using this forum has helped me during the current time because I have read and written on it virtually every day for the last few months.

Of course, all this electronic communication has made life so different. I used to get really frustrated when I met friends and the conversation kept being interrupted by them responding to texts. Now, I am doing the same. My mother has almost grabbed my phone from my fingers on a couple of occasions when I have been in her home, tapping out my responses on my phone on this forum. So, it does mean that we can be in the presence of others but not truly present for them. In the shared house I am myself and others are often preparing food in the kitchen, each involved with our phones, but more or less locked into our own separate universes.

But I have always been in wonder at the way we can be taken into other realities electronically. As a child, I viewed records and cassettes as more or less a miracle, for the whole way in which sound can be imprinted into grooves. Even though I do like paper books, I do think that e-books are wonderful because it means that it is possible to carry around a whole library, which is so light, unlike the weight of heavy books.

So, generally I am in favour of electronic communication, because it opens up so many possibilities. I do still wish to have face to face, embodied communication, too, so it is probably about getting the right balance.

I agree that sometimes people confuse emotionality with compassion because compassion is more than emotions. However, I am not sure at all about the way you divide emotion as being all about self and compassion as all about other. Okay, in some ways we can be restricted by virtue of emotion realm experience and perspective of the self, but I would say that our approach to others is connected to that towards others. The link is that our feelings towards others' needs stems from our understanding of our own individual ones.

Even though we are talking in jest, you have made a valid point in raising the idea of determinism in connection with compassion. That is to what extent does our biological nature program us towards compassion or against it, and the whole role is nurture in cultivating it.

I remember writing an essay question in sixth form: Are criminals born or made? I remember one aspect which I found in research was some evidence that men born with XYY chromosomes are more likely to commit crimes and end up in prisons. Here, the idea seems as if the extra Y chromosomes would give an additional tendency to aggression. I am not sure that compassion is simply about absence of aggression but it could be part of it. I know that many people believe that women are more nurturing than men and this could involve the whole role of biology and hormones. Of course, I am not wishing to perpetuate stereotypes and I am sure that men can be caring and compassionate. I am sure that history provides many examples of compassionate men, such as Ghandi.

Perhaps the way we are taught to a act plays an important role. Families which value compassion probably try to encourage this. I am sure that cultural valuing of compassion is important and perhaps the recent notion of the importance of 'emotional intelligence' is also one which helps cultivate it too.

One book I am reading, relevant to the idea of imagination and Plato's idea of forms is, 'The Physics of Transfigured Light: The Imaginal Realm and the Hermetic Foundation of Science', by Leon Marvell (2016). In this book, the author is exploring the whole dimension of ideas.

In it he says,'a disciplined imagination leads one to a more accurate picture of reality, and an unfettered imagination leads one more astray.' I think that this distinction is important because we are looking at the difference between seeing subjective truths and more objective ones, although I am not sure that this distinction is clearcut.

He also suggests a,
'notion of ideal objects existing in fourth-dimensional space. Rather than a world of physical objects, however, it is a "problem space. Of central importance is the notion that ideas and conceptions possess a logical dimension outside of time, such that the force of certain ideas will become apparent to certain individuals outside of material, causal factors.'

I am aware that this quote does refer to it as a 'logical dimension', but nevertheless it is one which involves the imagination in order to enter into it. This is the way I see imagination, as not just being about mere personal fantasy, but of connecting to a dimension in its own right, and I believe that belief in Plato's idea of forms is dependent on this. So, the way in which imagination is involved is as a means of tapping into this source. It is a way of knowing which does involve reason and logic, but the point which I would stress is that it does suggest a realm or objective dimension, and this also involves imagination in the true sense of the word, as in conjuring up images.

Yes, compassion is recyclable if you wash it thoroughly and remember to put it in an orange back and tie it up properly. Perhaps the part that will be useful is if you chop off the initial prefix and keep 'passion' as something which can be used to keep us going when life and all the philosophies seem to lead us to a flat picture of everything.

From discussion that I have had with some people I know, especially those I used to work with, it seems that many see unique expressions and being valued as an individual as something to be experienced in family life and personal life. In other words, go to work and put on a robotic self to get money in order to enjoy freedom outside of work. One of my friends recommended that I should see it that way, but I don't really feel able to split myself up in that way. If I try to act as a robot, I just seem to become a dysfunctional machine.

Personally, I am inclined to think that the more organisations push the arts out of the picture the more the value of the unique gets lost. Of course, I am in favour of science as a tool for critical analysis, but when this gets overblown, without any regard to the arts, I think that it all gets one sided. What we are beginning to see in many organisations is science and technology as the supreme champions with the arts squeezed into a little corner and I believe that this allows for dehumanization.

I remember someone saying to me, 'You are like some kind of artsy fartsy magic mushroom eater.'

Have you read 'The Outsider,' by Colin Wilson? It is one of my favourite books as it explores the whole way in which artists and other creative people see life from a different angle and have difficulty fitting into mainstream society.

I used to feel affiliation with the various subcultures ranging from the hippies, punk, goth etc. and I love music festivals. I think that we need a new subculture because all this seems retro nowadays. I think that there are ones around rap and someone told me about one called drill, but I am not that keen on rap.

Perhaps we need a new avant garde in art, literature, or even philosophy, such as a 'post' post modernism.

I think that knowing the ideas of the original teachings goes beyond translations of texts. It is also about looking at what became included in accepted teachings. In thinking of Christianity there was so much tension in the early Church, especially with the whole wish to suppress Gnostic thought. So, it is also about what got included in The New Testament and what got excluded. I have briefly looked at some of the Gnostic gospels, which were discovered in Nag Hamadi, and my thoughts when I read them was how they seemed more consistent with Eastern thought.

This is a very good question. How do we know about the underlying forms themselves. Apart from a priori knowledge, perhaps intuition is another means of inductive reason. Perhaps the role of imagination is not given enough importance and can also be a way of grasping the underlying forms as well. In some ways, imagination may be considered as subjective, but that doesn't mean that it can, at it's best, be a means of gaining access to some non physical truths, such as the underlying Forms of which Plato speaks.

It is hard to know what Jesus would have thought about animals and compassion. I cannot see why animals should be excluded from the picture. I didn't know that Descartes saw them as empty autonoms. Of course, they are different from humans but Descartes' picture seems a bit limited.

What I have noticed when I did a Google search on the philosophy of compassion, it does seem that the idea has been looked at more from an Eastern perspective. Perhaps this is connected to the way in which Western civilisation and Christianity has been more inclined to the idea of the battle between good and evil and the whole dominance of control of nature, in general. I believe that this is more about the way Christianity developed rather than the actual teachings of Christ, because I see a lot of overlap between his whole approach to life and that of the Buddha.

I would agree that,for some, compassion is 'self appeasement' and that is why the topic needs philosophical discussion. I think that indifferent is a problem that is real in many aspects of human life today and does need to be faced. I would say that many people simply follow rules and regulations and do close their eyes to many injustices, especially homelessness.

The questions which you raise are useful for thinking about effective compassion, or we could say going beyond it as a feeling to the nitty gritty of life. What you are really looking at is where there are conflicts of interest.

One example, would be the whole idea of 'just' war, where people take action to fight against injustice. An obvious that would be how people actively fought against the Nazi's in Germany out of compassion for the those suffering the atrocities in concentration camps. Many movements, including the whole anti-apartheid movement and animal rights are fueled by compassion and prevention of harm.

Even the complexities of the current pandemic are about compassion concerns and the competing harms which need to be addressed. There is compassionate concern to prevent the vulnerable people from getting extremely ill or dying and it is with this ending of harm that the extreme sanctions are being placed on everyone. However, this is not without problems because many people are experiencing extreme harm by the long periods of lockdown restrictions. Here, we are talking about extreme poverty, homelessness, many people not having routine health checks, in addition to an extreme rise in serious mental health problems. So, here we can see that compassionate concern to stop the harm of the virus is creating a whole load of other problems for large numbers of the population and this also needs to be addressed with compassion. Concern for one side of prevention of harm has to see it in the widest way here rather than a narrow one, because we are talking about competing harms.

This is probably where the philosophy of compassion comes in because we all probably have our own sympathies, in the concerns we have and this needs to be looked at as an ethical framework rather than just about empathy. In particular, we may feel the most compassionate for our family and friends. However, if we just fight for the concerns of our loved ones this can be to the exclusion of the needs of those outside of our immediate concern. It may be easier to see and respond to the need to protect an elderly relative rather than the needs of strangers who are living as homeless on the streets. It is at this wider level of prevention of harm that empathy requires consideration of more universal and objective measures.