If there were no 'if's would philosophy exist at all? I don't subscribe to an idea of 'self' independently of processes and we exist in a web of many actors. Each person is also acted upon and the reflective self as an existent may be the potential for action.

I do agree that picking out the coherent from the incoherent is an important marker. If anything, I regard my own thread as a rather strange one. I don't think that the content of the outpost is actually incoherent but it could be seen more as an issue for personal contemplation as opposed to actual philosophy analysis.

As for the 'made up' aspect, that is where fiction is so different from non fiction/philosophy. So, it is ironic that Pratchett includes a dialogue about fantasised possibilities. Fiction often draws people because it is about imaginary worlds.

I was actually surprised that this thread has got as much interaction as it has. It may be because it was provocative to some extent. There is also the question as to what is sense and nonsense in philosophy. I am not sure that in human thinking in the two first century that sense always has the upper hand. I am not just talking about in philosophy but in thought in general, especially with so much that is written online.

Once it may have been that academia was too obscure and missed common sense, but it may have gone in the opposite direction of incoherent nonsense being enjoyed.

PHaving grown up in Bedford, situated in between Cambridge and Oxford, I used to see libraries and bookshops filled with some of the authors who you have written about. When I first began thinking about philosophy questions, these did not make much sense to me (and they do so more now, as a result of some of your threads) However, some of the writings of the authors can seem so obscure, almost to the point of incoherence. I knew people who enrolled for philosophy courses, including someone, who started studying at Cambridge, and just couldn't get on with it at all.

So, as far as I see it, there is a a whole spectrum between academic obscurity and incoherent non sense. It may be a fine line, with what appeals to different people and what can be regarded as meaningful, worthwhile philosophy discussion.

I do see what you mean. It's all imaginary scenarios. It can be a futile way of going round in circles of 'what ifs and maybes'.

The only thing that I would say though, is that many people who I come across see philosophy in general in that way too. I am not just speaking about Ayer's point about metaphysics, but the many difficult questions, such as entire debates on the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, language and meaning. Many philosophy discussions could read like the Pratchett dialogue. It could be argued that the history of philosophy is about the various possible 'what ifs and maybes of life and the nature of 'reality'.

The block universe may be true. It does also seem that we relive so much of the past and it does take a lot of processing to reach some acceptance. That's why some people go for therapy. I do find a certain amount of journaling useful. At first, I found that my entries were extremely negative but now I try to incorporate thoughts about the future as well as the past. Being aware of the ups and downs is important. The Hindus invented the game of snakes and ladders based on this.

I am not sure that it as simple as, 'Bad experience comes from bad people'. There is some way in which the way we experience unpleasant behaviour from others is a factor. The first time I went out and got drunk was because someone had really upset me in a conversation. However, I know that in many instances that it is not just others who lead me into difficulties.

I am my own worst enemy sometimes, with an internal saboteur that leads to inner and outer chaos. So, forgiving myself is important too. This can be harder than forgiving others, although forgiveness of oneself and others are interconnected. I often get angry with myself and this doesn't help in the processing of the past and the flow of life into future mental states and action. It involves embracing a spirit of compassion, which begins with self-compassion.

Imagination is an important factor in navigating the processes of flow. One suggestion which I have come across by a few authors is that of living one's day as if it was one's last. I find this fairly helpful, although I don't really do everything exactly as if was my last, but as an imaginary frame. For example, I am able to do that to some extent today by trying to enjoy it as much as possible. That is because I know that I am not going to be able to pursue the issues which I am worried about as it is weekend and the people I need to speak with are not working. I am focusing on the moment by sensory appreciation, especially listening to music. Such moments prepare mindset for coping with whatever happens. There is also a sense of being able to transmute the darkness, or negatively into a transformative way of creativity.

With recollection, I have found generally that thinking of how previous break situations often turned out. There was painful experience to cope with but some kind of way through. I also find that a certain amount of gratefulness for the positives in any situation as important in some faith that a way forward can be found when I am becoming preoccupied with fear about the future.

it is true that the past is more fixed than the unknown of the future. I am aware of the idea in neurolinguist programming that the past can be remade in thought through reframing. This doesn't seem possible at times but I am aware that memories which were terrible can alter at some point in thinking about the larger picture. In particular, some memories of life when I was at school seemed atrocious for some time but looking back from my present thinking is so different, especially in the emotional charge of the memories. Also, the cognitive behaviour therapists speak of how it is thoughts about events which affect emotions as opposed to the actual events.

Also, awareness of the past is meant to be a basis for understanding and thinking about the present and choices. The problem is that learning from mistakes doesn't always occur. This is on a personal level and wider scale. In particular, I have always seen the study of history as important about striving to do things differently but humanity doesn't always learn from lessons of the past.

In some ways, the idea of living in the moment is a best-selling idea because many would like to do so but cannot.

Part of the problem is that the present isn't always great. Even when content, that may have been achieved by a some underlying memories. The difficulty can be shuffling the pleasant from the unpleasant effectively. Also, thoughts of the future involve dreams and ambitions, so a certain amount of thought about the future is often what gives a glimpse of future light.

Yes, I am writing this thread because I am not completely happy on a day to day basis and get anxious about what will happen next. I often wake up with anxieties and it is often that I have been awake in the night worrying too. On the other hand, when there is a bad situation, I often joke and say, 'Let's wait and see what next', with some underlying awareness of everything being transient.

I haven't read the book the book by Ram Dass but maybe the album 'Be Here Now', by Oasis was named after it (the album was released on a critical day, as it was the day Lady Diana died in a car crash).

As for blotting out memories of the past, one way this occurs is as a side-effect of ECT, but such memory loss is not always appreciated by individuals. This is some kind of induced unconsciousness.

Blake's idea of seeing 'eternity in an hour' is important because it is about focusing on the moment, especially in states of rapture. At times I felt able to achieve this, but only temporarily, falling back into rumination on memories and anxieties of what may happen. Similarly, one interpretation of Christ's idea of 'eternal life' involves attunment with a sense of eternity, rather than the idea of eternal life being about living forever. This interpretation would involve focus upon living life as best as one can rather than constant excessive worry.

It is hard to know how much is about splitting the past and future, or how much is holding on to the consequences of what has happened and likely occurrences in the future. It may be possible to switch this off, but awareness of the past casts a shadow, especially on mood. For example, if I had a bad day it may effect me for some future days. If I had some disagreement with someone it will have to be faced. If I have spent too much money one day I am likely to run short later.

Some consequences which have to be faced are trivial and some serious. If one commits a crime it may have effects which cannot be forgotten for one's entire life.

As for thoughts and worries about the future, some may be futile anxieties and others may be real obstacles to be faced. Distinguishing between them is not always easy. If I think back 10 years some of the things which I feared happening did and some didn't. It involves uncertainty and trying to plan ahead. But so much worry about imagined events can spoil quality of life in the present if the fears are of an intrusive nature. Slicing them out, like the memories of the past is difficult because the slicing of past and future is not as simple as the hour, day and month, as these roll together.

I wonder to what extent fear of the future is fear of death. Psychoanalytic thinkers have spoken of the idea of the 'nameless dread', which may be so encompassing.It may represent the chaos which is beyond personal or human control.

Having written this thread, I am wondering how this issue relates to the nature of evolution of consciousness. For some lifeforms the survival instincts and procreation are the ultimate. Social aspects of life may be important for some lifeforms.

However, it is in the human kingdom that self-actualization is most apparent and, so it can be asked does this figures in the larger scope of human evolution? Also, it is within the human realm that the idea of going beyond 'desire' becomes a possibility. How significant is this in the evolution of consciousness? What does the idea of 'desire' represent in the pathways of evolutionary potential?

It could be seen that way, but if analytical aspects of philosophy are viewed above experience, including the sensory, philosophy could be seen as obscure and irrelevant to life.

The difference between self-help and philosophy may be about the analytic concepts of philosophy and the pragmatic aspects of life. This is most obvious in ethics but how one copes with personal problems is also relevant.

Self-help may be seen as less important than wider spheres of ethics. However, how one views personal issues may also be relevant to issues of wider concern.

I am not sure to what extent the problem which I raise fits into the philosophy of time, or as an aspect of how one lives and living wisdom. I have read Eckhart Tolle's, ' The Eternal Now' and see how both past and future collapse into the experience of the 'eternal now'. However, eternity is such a wide frame of possible changes. The awareness of the moment may involve the experience of mindfulness, especially sensory experiences and the flow of thoughts.

But I do see it as a difficult aspect of life experience, although I am aware that it may be dismissed by those who come from the academic pursuit of philosophy. In that respect, I am not sure if the linguistic concept of the 'now is to be regarded or disregarded. Nevertheless, meaning and idea are conceptualized both in time present and past, as well in the momentary aspects of thinking. So, what is the significance of the 'now' in philosophy, especially as a thinker looks back on the history of philosophy, and the future? I am not sure to what extent it is a practical experience, a psychological issue or conceptual issue in understanding. I see it as an area for contemplation but what do you think?

Pantheism is so different from most forms of theism, because it emphasises immanence and processes. The 'God' is not 'out there' as a supreme judge, but is part of the 'here and now' experience of life. Pantheism can be regarded as subversive because it doesn't involve projection onto a superior being, beyond the realms of human experience.

It does seem that the idea of 'God' is often accompanied by ideas of divine justice, especially the idea of punishment for wrongdoing in the afterlife. This may be a comfort for those who feel injured by injustice. The idea of God often involves a sense of an underlying moral order and accountability for 'sin'.

Thank you for your concern and friends tell me that I need to find somewhere else to live. It is not easy to find accommodation though and I have moved many times, including during lockdown. I am in Harrow at the moment, and apart from the gang culture I prefer it to South London as I was living in Tooting previously.

I think that the problem is that there is so much drug culture and the people in the house are caught up in this. I used to be drawn to subcultures, especially in Camden Town but there are some very rough people and they can become so aggressive. They are not like Aldous Huxley or Allen Ginsberg, using psychedelics for writing. They often committing crime to pay for their addictions and desperation when withdrawing from substances. There also so much drug induced psychosis or dual disgnosis.

I am not, therefore I don't think.

I guess that my reference to brutality and violence is because it has come so much more real for me. I have been attacked 3 times in the last year and someone I know was stabbed. That person survived after hospital care for injuries. I was not seriously injured but had to go to A and E on one occasion. So, from my perspective, violence is not just hyped up by the media but is an issue to contend with.

It is likely that my experience is based on living in an area with more gang culture than I was used to in the past. But, I do wonder from interaction with people from gangs if part of the problem is such people's lack of sense of any real.personal identity and significance, which is projected onto those being attacked.

The discussion bounces because there are so many possible choices in values. It is also hard to know how useful it is to lament the loss of human values and 'morality'. It doesn't necessarily change anything. As far as I see, the most important aspect is for each individual to recognize their own significance as a way of waking up to some creative freedom.

Exactly, that was my initial starting point. Every detail counts significantly in the whole. Even on this forum, every member plays an important part and discussions would be so different if certain people had not joined in. Every person has an active role in shaping life for oneself and others. Existence is active presence.

I have come across British people who have been to Australia and loved it for that reason. In many ways, individuals' experience of how significant they feel may vary according to where they are living.

In London, I feel so little sense of any community and it is getting worse and worse. There is so much brutality and violence, and indifference to violence often too. There is so much fear and hostility. It is because I have known and seen better that I worry about it. I do have an underlying sense of personal value, and human values, which makes me object to the dehumanization which I see around me.

The Christian value upon each person as special and beloved by God was problematic insofar as it led to exploitation of other beings, mainly animals. However, the Judaeo-Christian tradition did value the human person, in principle if not always in practice.

Spiritual perspectives are inclined towards emphasis on individual worth and, in the West, Christianity was a starting point for individualism. This was also true of existentialism and secular humanism. The cultural relativism and postmodernism of the twentieth century were a likely shift in valuing of individual worth as ethical values were questioned at the core. This was at an academic level, but it is likely that it has had some impact, especially with the plurality of ideas in the information age.

The information age is also a way of showing how small each person is in the scheme, with the exception of influential celebrities. The media have often looked to external signs of 'success' and not paid much attention to the inner life and the value of each unique person.

Grandiosity may well spring from low self worth, with the need for pretence of one's importance. It can often swing into the sense of 'failure' and a sense of despair. This can occur in bipolar affective disorder, which used to be known as manic depression.

It does seem that the equation of a person with money is what reduces a person to being a mere number. The nature of competition in capitalism has the social and psychological effects of dehumanization. The school of new economics, such as that of EF Schumacher were based on the value of work as the highest expression of service personal meaning and value. As it is, materialistic competition is getting tougher in the fight for resources and 'Small is Beautiful' is a lost value.

The culture of individualism gave rise to an inflated sense of the worth of the self, even grandiosity. It came with an emphasis on personal expectations, demands an individual rights. This was accompanied by a philosophy of being able to master and create personal identity through autonomy.

However, in the twentieth first century the culture of individualism is receding into awareness, especially through the media, of mass culture. In many ways, this gives rise to a sense of personal insignificance for many, especially those lacking in power. Certain individuals are treated as mere numbers, and the vulnerable are often regarded as a 'nuisance' and burden unlike in traditional society, in which there was a spirit of community.

I like your full consideration of your own personal significance. Each person exists for oneself and others. There is the question of one's own inner knowledge, development and wisdom. Does it count at all if it is not shared or is still significant.

When I thought about the thread question I didn't think about the way it relates to medical ethics and the question of 'unborn child'. That has often hinged on the question as to at what stage does a person come into being. The problem is that has often being a way of guilt tripping people, especially women in difficult situations, suggesting that they should not have abortions. The argument against birth control is also bound up with an emphasis on the moral good of procreation. Where it gets critical though is where people are advised not to have children who may have disabilities and other complex issues. There can be judgmental biases of whose life has 'quality' and value.

Of course, from the standpoint of one's own ego consciousness, if one does not exist it would not matter. But if Wayfarer had not existed it might make some difference in the larger picture, including 'The Philosophy Forum'.

Yes, conceptualizing a world without oneself is a cognitive problem. It is possible to imagine a world after one's death, but that in itself is fantasy because there are so many potential variables. It is hard enough to predict what will happen in one's own life, let alone outside of it.

Such a thought experiment is a question but excessive rumination on it could be futile. The main way in which I see it useful is for thinking about one's specific influence while one is alive, like one's unique personal signature. It becomes linked to the way of evaluating one's role in life. For example, I often worry that I take more than I give in life. I do seek to give out rather than than take but am aware of my own limitations. So, I see the imagination of a world without me as a way of thinking and reviewing the issues of what do I contribute to the larger scheme.

I am inclined to see time as cyclical, so both past and present are about about dynamic patterns. In that respect, it is potentiality and actuality, as to what, including individuals person, in the specifics of manifestation. There is almost infinite possibilities, such as all the possibilities of reproductive potential of DNA, and this is the primordial chaos underlying what possible persons may come into existence.

I am glad that someone else has thought about this question. While it is speculative reflection, it is not completely abstract.

It is true that no one's being and role is irreplaceable. When I left the job I had worked in for a number of years I wondered who would take on various roles I had played out there. What I came to realise was that so much was shifting with various comings and goings. Roles are so fluid and it is almost as if we are like puppets taking on different parts in a larger fabric which is weaved of so many variables in dynamic interplay.

I guess that I am just imagining oneself as negative space, which is only fantasised projection in the sense of removing oneself from pathways of causal chains. Each person is separate but also interconnected with others in determining influences. It is not mere actions but discourse, including the spoken, and non-verbal.effects, as interpreted in variable ways.

Seeing oneself at the centre of everything, or as having a peripheral role can be a shifting aspect of perspective. There can be extremes of inflation or deflation of one's importance. It is possible to see oneself as having too much of a determining effect or too little.

Each person has some influence but it is variable. One of the most obvious determing actions one has is the role in bringing children into the world. But there are so many other contributions one may make . This is interconnected to moral responsibility and one's sense of agency, as well as the awareness of outcomes of one's influences for others', as evident in their feedback and description of one's personal significance of influence for them.

The ripples of desires and actions are complex. I have come across suggestions like it can be useful to determine the significance of a life event if it will matter in 10 years time. This can be a useful frame but it is sometimes the small events which spiral into large ones..

With events like wars there is an interplay of individuals and leaders in chains of events. It could be argued that if one figure had not taken on a role another person would have done. The interplay of individual actors and their actions cannot always be separated out clearly.

It may be dark.rumination to wonder about what could have been different, with regret. I probably started out conceiving of my own existence during childhood when my mother told me how she had almost had a fatal accident before I was ever conceived. She said to me, 'Just imagine, your would never have existed...' it led be to wonder about a world without me ever coming into being, which is different from a world after one's own death. That is because after death there are already traces of oneself left in the world.

You say that your role doesn't exist outside of one's participation and, in a sense one's nonexistent self is a limbo phantom self. However, if one had not existed that doesn't mean that others would not have existed, so life would have been different for them.

Generally, there has been so much harm done by religious beliefs although some find great comfort in them. It is not just religious wars but religious psychosis. I know people who have fears, such as being the devil or the Antichrist. I understand that Marilyn Manson believed that he was the Antichrist at one stage, until he came to the conclusion it was symbolic.

I remember how as a teenager I got so freaked out by some Christian people saying that there were demonic backward messages in certain music. One big example is Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven', in which there is meant to be the words 'Satan is God' if the song isplayed backwards.

I was reading Bertrand Russell's summary of Spinoza and thinking about how interesting it is that Spinoza speaks of evil being a necessary aspect of God. I can see why he is radical and can be interpreted as an atheist. His ideas, whether he is regarded as a pantheist, or whatever are a radical departure from the religious ideas of the masses, but different from materialism.

Whether one is a materialist, pantheist, or an existentialist there is the confrontation with ultimate fear. The nature of existentialist fear is about facing the starkness of bitter truths, especially death and the unknown. Fear exists inside and outside of religious framework but is just in a different way.

I am inclined to see patterns and synchronicities in life experiences but that may be about my own narrative story making tendency. It is interesting how different individuals see life and the ideas of purpose and destiny so differently. It may be partly based on what wishes to believe, or some innermost subconscious conditioning, or even the nature of one's own life experiences, or a mixture of all of these. In some cases, some challenging experience, as well as philosophical reading and thinking, may lead to profound shifts in religious or non religious interpretations.

I wonder what Spinoza, and many of us philosophers would have made of quantum physics. I won't deliberate on this because it comes down to models of 'reality', especially the dialogue between religious/ spiritual metaphysics and science. I can see why some question the validity of 'metaphysics' in the dialogue between the arts and sciences.Bertrand Russell spoke of a 'no man's land' to describe philosophy and this may correspond with the ongoing issues of relationship between religion and science in shaping ideas of religion. The worldviews of the philosophy of 'reality'. The dea of 'God' may seem outdated, but it is an extremely complex area of philosophy, and may not be dismissed easily in human understanding..

Of course, the concept of 'God' had been used and abuse for various ends in arguments. One question may be what are the benefits and disadvantages of throwing the idea of 'God' aside in philosophy?

Telepathy, like premonitions, is an interesting phenomena. There are science explanations but they only show the hardwiring. They may point to the way in which everything is aspects of the larger system and interconnected. The idea of the microcosm being a reflection of the macrocosm goes back to Plato. It may be that hallucinogenics enable tapping into this in altered states of consciousness. Also, the anthropologist, Gregory Bateson, spoke of people in certain states of consciousness; such as that of shamanism being able to tune into patterns in the larger scheme.

Language may not capture the full nature of the divine or numinous experience. The silence of meditation experiences may capture this, as does those who speak of mystical experiences. Of course, understanding in the rational sense is important, but it is limited. This is with or without the notion of God. The emphasis on the limits of language and silence were spoken of by Wittgenstein. He did not speak of God and it may be that the idea of God symbolises that which lies beyond the realm of knowledge.

Epicurus is correct to see the gods as representing moral ideals. This is the foundation of mythic reality. Within Christianity, for example, the 'imitation of Christ' and discipleship has been prominent. It may have got lost, or been ignored, by some individuals in history, who got caught up religious imperialism.

The question is whether the immortality of God and, any form of mortality, is about symbolism and archetypes, for humans to follow. Even cultural figures, like Jim Morrison, Elvis and Marilyn Monroe may have a 'God-like' symbolic quality, as significant beings who existed and continue to be inspirational icons. Jesus existed as person, and so did Krishna, but the foundation of all gods may not be based on an actual person, or as something living on in the 'heavens'.

As for the metaphysical nature of immortality, beyond the human imagination, it does depend if heaven (and hell) are seen as having an objective foundation. The belief in immortality, beyond role models, depends on how this is seen.

Heaven and hell exist in the human imagination, and may be experienced in this embodied life, but as to whether they are an experiential reality in it's own right is open to question. Some see near death experiences as pointing to such forms of immortality but it is hard to know if they are simply brain states of the person, while still embodied. So, the immortality of God(gods, angels and human spirits) depends on whether there is a dimension beyond embodiment. Ultimately, arguments for and against it are a matter of speculation.