I am not sure what you are trying to say. I am interested in discussing prejudice and I don't consider my background as being 'snug' or'posh'. I would argue that that the striving to overcome prejudice goes beyond being a progressive idea and is central to any genuine concern about human beings.

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all.

The reason why 'other' is sometimes used on forms is to give room to anyone, who, for whatever reason, does not feel that they fit into a binary distinction of the two gender categories.

I think that your final paragraph gets to the core of the difficulty. How far can you let people go about voicing prejudices without condoning them? Another underlying problem is that even though in many situations some authority can say what is allowed to be expressed, but ultimately you cannot tell people what they are allowed to think or feel.

Okay, you may think that this is the matter between the private and the social but it is not so simple. For example, what I have seen in some situations is that when managers and other figures are around everything is said in a very politically correct way. When these people are not present, however, all the suppressed prejudices are voiced and come into play, with so much vengeance. So, what is the answer to this kind of problem?

I am inclined to wonder if you are speaking of the imaginary or imagination.

When you saw my unedited response to Madfool it should have read as mathsism rather atheism. I think my phone changed mathsism, possibly because I have invented it.

I don't know if that would have altered your reasoning of my comment. The actual question of the thread is whether or not quality is an illusion and I don't think that this should be a question exclusive to maths or hard science. Most of the thread introduction was about maths, but with some discussion of beauty. The end question was about whether everything can be reduced to maths and I am saying that it cannot.

An interesting bit of debate going on here. I think that the idea of 'cleansing' of prejudice is a bit problematic as a metaphor. It reminds me too much of the whole racist of the idea of ethnic cleansing. It also conjures up images of antibacterial gel and disinfectant, as if being applied to our thoughts and feelings.

I think that the whole point is to be aware of prejudice as the starting point rather than have it kept buried and emerging in a more sinister form.How different might things have been if Hitler had been able to admit to a prejudice against the Jews rather than have this lurking in his subconscious and coming out in the idea of a the creation of a master race.

I would suggest that what is important is that prejudices, preferences and dislikes are brought out into the open for discussion. Perhaps this is what is really needed for the raising of consciousness.

I don't know why you want to quantify everything. It seems like a prejudice of mathsism.The reason I began talking about literature and fiction is because I believe that this is an area in which there is a whole debate as to whether quality is an illusion.

I would say that the value of any human life should be held very highly because each unique person is like a universe. Perhaps, in an overpopulated world the value of each individual is not considered as being that significant. But that might be a reflection of the values of consumer material industrial society.

However, there is also the other matter of human beings seeing themselves as the top of the hierarchy of living beings, to dominate and exploit the natural world. This valuing is questionable.

I am certainly not suggesting that you think that people should be treated as objects. From what you have written in your many posts it would not make sense.

However, I do feel that you are dismissive the whole aspect of psychological truths in fiction. Just because people in fiction have bodies doesn't mean that fiction can be understood in that way. What I think you are doing is applying the philosophy of reductive determinism to fiction and literature, and this misses the whole purpose of most novels.

Yes, I agree that prejudice is so complicated as it goes deeper into the unconscious. I do think that it is bound up with likes and dislikes. Also, the idea of cleansing out or fumugating all prejudices would be going to far. If anything, I would say that the main thing is for us to be critically aware more than anything else.

I hadn't ever come across the idea of any gay bars being exclusive to any specific ethnic group because I don't think that there are any in England which are. One thing I am particularly aware of is the way in which gay people who are of African descent often have an extremely difficult time within their families and in their communities.

I probably do have some prejudice against the extremely wealthy, which I hadn't really thought about until you mentioned it. But, I don't really come into much contact with the extremely wealthy. That is, as far as I know, because I might encounter these people and not even be aware of their great wealth.

The idea of a ' cognitively slow' person raises a lot of questions in itself. What on earth does it mean to be labelled cognitively 'slow'. Also, the factors leading to learning disabilities are numerous, and not always genetic

Genetics is unpredictable. Two people who have exceptionally high IQs won't necessarily have a child that does. Also, genetics is about dominant genes and can have various results. In particular, children of a set of parents may not all look alike at all.

But fiction isn't just about objects. It's about people and their psychological truths. To just view the people as objects would be a very flat level of understanding the whole scope and meaning of literature. Even if you think of the romantic relationships it would be a mistake to think that this is just about beautiful bodies, because so much is about the emotions.

I would say that I know many people who are extremely racist and sexist. I probably thought a lot about these matters when I studied sociology in sixth form. I do think that these prejudices are embedded in structures not just specific individuals. Of course, the values of the individuals shape and change structures but this is probably at a much slower rate than the ideas of specific individuals.

Of course, all the different aspects of life add up, such as America having a black president and England having a woman prime minister are significant. I am sure that a black woman born into the Western world today has a far better prospect than if she had been born 100 years ago, or in a remote part of the world.

I can remember struggling over a Kant essay. I was writing about the whole issue of means and ends and the topic I chose to focus on for some of the discussion was prostitution. So, that is an example of a life issue which you could think about and discuss.

It is not about whether I give privileges on account of such characteristics. I try to see all people for who they are on a deeper level and so do many other people but I do see people being treated unequally.

I really like your music taste and it is quite an interesting contrast. I love the Waterboys for when I am up(This is the Sea' album) and The Jesus and Mary Chain for when I am down(esp Darklands album) I recommend a Waterboys side project, featuring Karl Wallinger, The World Party. You may well have come across them, but I think that 'Private Revolution' and 'Goodbye Jumbo' are terrific.

Okay, someone is born with biological characteristics of a specific gender or race and these are not privileges as such. However, the person is coming into a social world in which th privileges are likely to be based on these characteristics. Unless we are in a social order which does not have a cultural ranking based on such differences there are likely to be certain privileges. I am sure that there has been a big shift in the last 50 years but I don't think that we really live in an equal world in many ways.

Fiction can't be translated easily into shapes. I know that it written in alphabetical shapes but it would be absurd to try to quantify it in this way. It involves stepping into the mythical perspective and this involves specific meaning for different individuals. Individuals are likely to approach idifferently according to their personal experiences. I don't think that it would be possible to quantify the whole realm of storytelling at all.

Yes, I agree that equal opportunities are important for enabling equality. Unfortunately, I have seen situations where people pay lip service to this while the whole spirit of it is ignored. For example, if people try to make the statistics show that gay or disabled people are being employed in certain professions and the reality is that those people go on to get bullied so much that they leave the job.It is not good if the translation of policy into practice becomes one of empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, from what I have seen, this can be what happens in some organisations.

You say that 'the recipient of privilege is never born with it', but that ignores the whole way into which can be born into an environment of privilege. An easy example is how some people are born into wealthier backgrounds. The whole life we are given at birth affects who and what we can become in so many ways.

One thing that it is worth thinking about is the clear distinction between fact and fiction. Okay, with the person in the wheelchair that is something we can see directly, but not all others are so straightforward. The example of the person with the criminal record is a clear example. Only very limited people would have access to that information and so, in such cases, a lot may be about rumours, or if more, it may be about someone having abused access to or sharing of confidential information.

I still maintain that you are using the term bad faith to justify a whole process of seeing the bad in others. Sometimes, when we see bad in others it involves psychological projection.

Yes, I think that the less we put people into little boxes the better. I don't want to become 'Jack in the Box'. We are becoming used to having to tick more and more boxes, on more and more forms, increasingly.

I am not sure that what you are talking about under the guise of 'bad faith' is not really a misuse of the term bad faith. I certainly don't think you are using it in the way Sartre intended. However, I understand that the specific aspect of discussion was really between you and KK, so I will leave him to reply.

The idea of being of emotion detachment being a requirement to certain professions is worth reflecting on. My own slant on it is one in which in some ways I was required to do and in other ways, it was had limitations. That is because I was working in the care profession. In some ways, I had to be involved in the implementation of some decisions which people didn't like, such as being expected to administer medication to Sectioned patients against their choice, which meant a certain amount of detachment was needed. However, if one became too detached in this kind of work, the whole notion of compassionate care would get lost altogether.

I think professionalism is also important. In particular, I feel that the way people express views is bound up with this. Personally, I probably adhere more to the guidelines I have been taught than if I had not had that training. I am not saying it is necessarily better, but a whole way of being taught to express ideas. Even when I am writing on this site, it probably comes into play, in how I express my views and in what I include or exclude. However, I would say that some people keep their work and private self entirely separate. I know someone who told me how when at work he put on a professional persona. I am not sure that I could divide myself up so much. Of course, when I am not at work I relax and can be more free in expression, but I am the same person in most situations.

The relationship between toxic masculinity is an interesting area. Because we could ask to whom is the masculinity toxic? In some senses it can be toxic to the man if it involves being confined to traditional interests, such as football and male orientated jobs.

On the other hand, it can be toxic on the level of toxicity which is about keeping women in their place, such as the view that women should be at home, in the kitchen, as housewives. I remember being at school and one of my teachers telling me that a lot of heated discussion took place between the teachers in the staff room, along this line.

Most people don't think any longer that men should be the breadwinners and women as housewives. However, there are some who think that way, mainly those from a generation who were taught this value. But, of course there are still some chauvinistic attitudes which are subject to scrutiny. I know one man who actually calls himself a feminist. We could ask if it makes sense to identify as a 'feminist man', or is it a contradiction in terms?

You speak of the importance of looking for the bad in someone. I would say it depends on what looking for the bad entails.

One situation in which you could consider the question is of an employer recruiting staff. Obviously, having chosen to invite certain people for interviews, which may in have involved some biase, we can think about the whole aspect of 'bad' played out in interviews. The employee has to seek to weed out potentially good employees. This will involve a certain assessment, which will be about the person's work history and attitudes among other criteria. This does involve perceiving potential problems like to trying to eliminate people who are lazy or careless. However, on some level this can go beyond that and involve prejudiced bias, against for example gay people or married women.

It would probably be difficult to raise an official complaint for not being selected for a particular job. However, the matter is different entirely once a person has been employed. If someone is dismissed from a job it could be down to the person's standard of work or conduct, or it could involve the prejudice of the employer. It is a grey area and so many complex industrial tribunals are based on the fine lines of this matter.

I would just add that you speak of the importance of seeing bad in others in order for evolutionary survival and one -upmanship. This is once again a difficult grey area, because where does one go in separating this from bullying.

I think that quality is a concept which extends into all areas not just maths. However, I think that it goes beyond beauty. This can be superficial and quality is about depth as well. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is if someone wrote a philosophy book, written in the most exquisite language but lacking in sufficient knowledge would it have quality? Certainly,I would see it as rather lacking.

Obviously, the idea of quality has some kind of subjective criteria. For instance, certain literature is viewed as literary fiction. I know many people who find this fiction rather pretentious. I have mixed feelings and read some of this but can see that it is not necessarily of better quality than some fiction which is not ranked as literary fiction. So, I would say that the whole idea of quality is about certain standards, which are socially constructed.

You are right to say that being 'chilled out' doesn't make for fighting for civil liberties. I have to admit that I have been on matches for certain causes I have believed in. Perhaps all this social distancing is making me get too chilled out. I also think work has made me learn to blunt my emotions a bit.In an earlier post, I said that I often have to avoid expressing too much personal opinion to 0patients, but I think that it was also a case of feeling that I had to be careful what I said to colleagues.

I think that different situations allow for different levels of voicing of opinions. In some cases, anger does seem to arise from the people not expressing an opinion. Also, some people are less able to articulate their views more than others. Personally, I am probably more in the habit of writing than arguing with people. Even at work, if I was angry about something I was usually emailing about something rather than talking about it. I also used to get so stressed by some emails at work. But, life leads to so much emotion, especially anger, and the whole channel for this is an underlying issue.

Your example of the thoughts which can come into mind is an example of the way in which people can drift into prejudiced assumptions. You are able to stop and think about how the person may have underlying health issues.

You mention that you don't get yelled at because you have a posh voice. I have to say that at times I can look a bit of a yob. Even though I think white, I did get stopped and searched by the police on one occasion.

When people meet others for the first time, the whole set of assumptions they bring is interesting.I know many people who claim that they go by first impressions. To some extent, we use first impressions. If someone speaks to us and we don't feel at ease with them we are not likely to continue the conversation. However, it is a complex area because if people form impressed of others and aren't prepared to go to this it gives so much opportunity for prejudice to creep in.

Yes, you make some good points. Also, some people are so patriotic in defending the British, getting heated as those in many philosophical arguments. I am half Irish but I prefer to see people as people rather than in terms of nationalities.

Of course, it is only natural to get emotional in arguing certain views. I am sure that I have done so on many occasions. I am really opposed to nuclear weapons and against capital punishment and I can remember getting really heated about these topics, especially at school. I used to get into very emotive debates about religion with my father as a teenager.

Also, I have to admit that sometimes even when I read this site I get quite worked up by some posts I read. To some extent, emotion and anger do have a motivating effect in enabling us to fight for certain causes.

Probably, I have just got to the point where I like to listen to viewpoints and avoid arrogance about the views and ideas which I feel passionate about.

Everyone has privileges in the structure of the social world, such as being male, white etc. In a way, we could say that the most disadvantaged could be the black, disabled lesbian. We live such hierarchical structures in a way in which these categories are almost invisible but they permeate life.

Thinking of the example of the earlier thread of the way in which men often feel treated badly in education establishments, this does need to be seen in the light of the whole way in which men were the elite in education in the past. This history of male dominance is being overturned and it makes some uncomfortable. I remember in sixth form English class how one boy decided to leave school because he just couldn't cope with our feminist teacher who went as far as calling God 'she'. This was quite interesting really in a Catholic Comprehensive school.

But of course there are situations such as in groups, in which people proclaim their disadvantages almost like trump cards. But, despite this it has to be remembered that such people probably have a history of being treated badly. And, it is complicated because there are also invisible differences. For example, I have seen disabled people objecting to so called able-bodied people using disabled toilets and they are making the assumption that all disabilities are visible. So, it is extremely complicated.

When I studied sociology, I was always interested in the way labelling occurs. I love the way in which Becker's theory of labelling portrays the way in which people, especially deviants are labelled as outsiders and this affects their whole identity, usually negatively. The whole way in which people are categorical as 'bad' or 'mad' has big consequences too.

So, I would argue that the whole way we are seen in social life and the way life involves power structures has major impact. Also, when changes occur some are going to react to their privileged position being challenged.

Yes, I am trying to use it constructively. I have moments when I am too great about it but I do believe that, by the end, we will have learned a lot, especially about ourselves. We are not used to spending so much time by ourselves. It feels like it has lasted for much longer than a year. I definitely feel that I am very different from the way I was before it all started and I am hoping that I am a much better and wiser person. I have certainly reflected enough on philosophy in that time, and I am sure you have, as you post a lot. I am hoping that this is all worthwhile in the long term scheme of everything.

I think that you are correct to say that fear is at the centre. I think that we are all fearful of difference and probably any loss, including the loss of personal privileges.

Yes, but if life carried on as it is now I would question whether there would be any quality of life at all, because just about every outlet available is closed down. I don't know about you but I haven't met any friends for just about a year. I haven't worked since May and can't really look for work.

I do remember at some point replying to you when pubs were open, and I was saying that I was reading a book. So, it might appear that London is better but in order to enter premises I was having to fill in forms of personal details. In some places, i couldn't even buy a cup of coffee because I hadn't got the right app on my phone to scan in. I think that is the kind of social world we are going to be in for a very long time. I am sorry if this sounds negative but this is because the whole lockdown life is making me unable to sleep. It is all just going on and on, but I do hope that we start to see some way out by spring.

I would say that it is probably about the extent of making judgemental biases. An extreme example would be when someone says, 'I don't like blacks- they are taking all the jobs,' This might sound over the top but it is one which I have heard many times in England. There are so many far more subtle ones and I would suggest that the problem is when people are not prepared to go beyond initial preconceptions.

It could be argued that most educated people have thought beyond this level. However, I am not sure that all the basic prejudices have been eradicated but become hidden. However, it is not just about race but about all aspects of difference. I think it is likely that slightly different groups may be on the receiving end of prejudice.

Of course, you or anyone else is welcome to say that in many ways prejudice, and the whole systemic imbalances of power have been addressed mostly. However, so far on the site no one has actually suggested this. Also, there have been a number of threads on aspects of difference, and two having been deleted has caused controversy. So, somewhere in the midst of the collective unconscious of this site, there may be some burning concerns. But the focus of mine is a bit more obscure because it is about the prejudiced mind and looking at ourselves.

I also think that mindfulness is useful, especially in conjunction with some meditation. The particular aspect of mindfulness that is useful in my experience is the whole process of observing the flow of thoughts which enter into our psyches.

I am not sure that the majority of people are going to be able to work from home. I only know a few individuals who are really able to do this, because it is mainly for people whose work is on computers. If only there was such a solution for climate change. As it is many lives have been more or less been put on complete hold, but we will have to wait and see what happens. I try to avoid doom and gloom thinking. I am also hoping that most people will have the vaccine because I am aware of many who plan to refuse it.

I try to keep an open mind about the future because the whole topic of Covid_19 and restrictions is one in which it is easy to get locked into positions of thinking. Sometimes, I go out and feel so negative. I have to kickstart my whole emotional mindset, and keep focused and try to think and approach all the challenges we are up against in the most creative way possible.

You say that it is 'about what which direction your arrow is pointed, what you aspire to'. I am not sure that many people consciously choose to remain prejudiced, but probably don't stop and consider their own prejudices. Perhaps, it is so much easier to see the problem 'out there' and point the finger of blame at others, and each of us may do this to some extent. I am probably coming to this from a bit of a psychoanalytic and I am translating it into the framework of philosophy.