Even though it is slightly off topic from my thread discussion I was interested to know that you are in Manchester. I imagined you in America and, generally, that not many people on the site are in England, so perhaps I am wrong there (ha ha!) I would imagine that you have it a lot worse time of almost indefinite lockdown.

Generally, I agree with what you say about people's attitudes and behaviour. But one thing which I am also thinking is that after all this time of just staying indoors, many people are almost going to need rehabilitation to go back to living the life that they have lived. I go out to the shops but I know many who have almost stopped, especially as so much can be delivered. I wear a mask, of course, but I have knocked items over and tripped over a step because I can't see properly as my glasses steam up so much.

I sometimes think that life in Britain will never go back to the way it was, and I really hope that I am wrong.

I would agree that some people don't think see the consequences of their religious beliefs in most senses.They don't seem to make connections between church doctrines and dogmas. Generally, I think these are more the people who view church more as a social convention. They are usually not the ones who are going to agonise or have any sleepless nights over the philosophy questions. But, at some point, something might happen in their lives which really makes them stop and question life and death.

But, equally many people who are not religious don't stop and question beliefs that deeply. I think a lot of people I know think that I am a bit of a nerd for reading philosophy books. There are people who have fixed beliefs, those who don't seem to care much at all, and a whole spectrum in between.

I think that in some cases people are so determined to 'know', in order to avoid stepping into the existentialist void of not knowing. Obviously, we seek to build pictures of how reality works, but this may involve deconstruction and time in the wildernes. How many are prepared to travel into this wilderness? I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.'

I would say I view meditation as experiential. Perhaps it is not too important to question whether the zone we can enter into is objectively real or not. Philosophical analysis is important but perhaps it has it limits and that appreciation of experience is important too. But that is not to say that your question is not important because philosophy can be about understanding process and not just metaphysical.

I think that one underlying question is whether the need for religion can ever be overcome?Many of the ancient philosophers interweaved religious and philosophical speculations.

Personally, my own interest in philosophy grew in the context of issues raised in religious upbringing. I have stepped outside of the Catholic tradition in which I was raised. However, I am sure that in some ways the whole way I think borrows from religious seeking. Perhaps the people who were not brought up with religion think differently. Certainly, I can remember the point in childhood when I found out about the theory of evolution and it was around the same time that I discovered about sex, so it was like stepping into a new world.

But the point I would make is that religious thinking can be deconstructed, but it does not alter the way in which the questions of religion come from the same starting place. So, perhaps the most important thing is to be able to draw out the central questions of philosophy within religious beliefs. Obviously, every person answers these differently, but obviously that involves freedom of choice and thought.

I think that you are new to the forum, so I will try to explain where I am coming from in creating this thread question. My intention was not to suggest that we cannot know anything. Some of the big philosophy questions such as is there a God, life after death are speculation, but that doesn't stop people forming answers which are satisfactory to them. Sometimes people wish to defend their positions at all costs, and probably that is what I was thinking about.

Of course, most individuals do believe that they are right because they have spent time and energy coming to answers, so it is important to defend these. Certainly, I don't think it would be helpful to say that we cannot know at all about the questions of philosophy. Perhaps, a better starting point is to consider what do I know?

I don't think that it is always a mistake to claim that one might be or have been wrong. That is not to say that truth is unknowable, but that one's own position has changed. I think that it would indeed be wrong to think that since one has committed to a perspective that it can never be changed. I am not suggesting some kind of watery fickleness, but an ongoing honesty.

In certain instances, it could be bravery to admit to being mistaken and not a sign of weakness. It is not as if the philosopher, or any other thinker, is meant to be infallible. I would say that what is most important is an ongoing commitment to the quest for truth and this might change according to new facts which emerge, or due to a shift in the thinker's perception.To merely hold onto a conviction just for the sake of not admitting to being wrong would be a hollow sham, revealing the ridiculousness of trying to assert that one is right.

It's 2 am where I am, so I am becoming ridiculous reading and writing on this site at this time. So, I have just read what you have written quickly, so I apologise for that.

However, what my thoughts are is that I know that you are writing in the tradition of the romantic philosophers but I am not sure that the way that they write would be accepted nowadays. The whole academic culture has changed. I am certainly not saying it is better.

One reason why I prefer creative writing to academic writing is the whole way in which research is seen, and it is a lot worse in other disciplines from philosophy. In some disciplines absolutely every sentence has to be backed up by some research study. We are not talking about merely avoiding plagiarism but about having to find a study as evidence in order to make a point at all. It is as if the author is not allowed a personal voice at all. So, philosophy and this forum offers so much relative scope really.

The other thought that I have is that there is a big difference between writing for oneself and writing for others. When I write in my notebooks alone that is usually my writing for myself but I know that it probably needs to be different if I was to present it to others. I have not ever submitted for publication, but I think that getting writing published is tough.

Anyway, I won't go on because I am not sure that you will think much of my answer, and I really am tired, so good night. Also, I am not sure that this dialogue will help either of us in the eyes of anyone on the forum.

I am not saying your idea of meditation as an 'exotic experience' and of being 'a doorway to richly interpreted and subjectively mediated experience' is wrong. It is a good argument, but how can you know, for sure? What you are saying is just as much an interpretation as the person who sees the matter from the more exotic point of view.

I began reading your message while I was replying to Josh. It is interesting that you have all that experience of meditation. I have mainly attended meditation workshops and have done my own meditation techniques at home in improvised form.

One form I have tried is a lesser known form known as transmission meditation. It was developed by a rather unusual thinker, Benjamin Creme. I found the meditation really helpful although I am not saying that I think that all the ideas of Creme are particularly creditable. One main difference is that in this meditation practice the person is focusing on the ajna point, located in the centre of at the level of the eyebrows.

One reason I would say that I question the idea of entering another reality is that the whole idea of transmission meditation is about energies levelled down from the divine hierarchy. I realise that this whole idea could be seen as complete nonsense by many, but when I practiced this meditation I found it really helpful. However, I realise that you are a practitioner of Zen meditation, so what you are talking about is probably different entirely.

I think that it may be a subject of debate in itself whether the meditators really go to another place or not, or whether this is a mythical belief. I know that I am someone who dabbles in meditation and sometimes 'feel' that I am going to other dimensions, and I have even discussed the idea of fourth and fifth dimensional in a couple of threads on art but I am not sure how these stand up for scrutiny of rigorous philosophy analysis.

I can imagine that you are a bit disappointed by having only one response so far. Perhaps the question is one that is a rather unusual slant, but it could just be that your thread is a slow starter.

I have to be careful when I speak of an 'other reality' because it is frequently taken for mysticism on this forum and I am not sure that it even is. I am talking about entering into the world of thought. This can involve meditation, but can just be about thought itself. I think many people who write on the forum dislike the whole idea of meditation but in some ways I am not sure that there is a real difference between what it is in practice from focused concentration.

I don't know why you or some others are concerned about their articles being accepted for the actual articles section because we can read your article anyway. Also, a couple of people have submitted articles by link. So, really by the time any were put into the section of articles most people would have read them already.

About a month ago, Hippyhead had ideas that the whole site should be altered with the articles being the main one. I strongly disliked this idea because I thought that it would set up a system where the people with accepted articles would be seen as of higher rank. I said to Hippyhead that I didn't like the whole idea of article submissions because it set up a power dynamic of people having their work accepted or rejected.

So, what I am saying is that I don't think that you need be concerned about your article not being 'accepted' because it is on the site. People have only to log into the Section on Articles Submitted and your article on Egoism is there, waiting to be read. Also, on my phone, the font is clearer than the one in the official articles section.

Yes, it is interesting how much going to university does bring a lot of changes to thinking. I am probably aware that I changed a lot more in relation to those I went to school with who did just left school and got a job. But perhaps that was because I was less conventional deep down than those people in the first place.

It is hard to know how much is about studying and how much is about experimentation in campus life. Initially, I gravitated towards the religious students but after a while I started to realise that I did not fit in with them really. I was studying religious studies as one of my first year options and this involved comparative religion and I started to discover an affinity with Hinduism and Buddhism. This was probably the beginning of my sliding away from Catholic ideas, and I do still have a sympathy with such systems of belief.

But I suppose that an underlying issue is to what effect does life experiences have on our ideas. I think that it was really the whole experience of having 2 friends commit suicide within a couple of years that led me to question absolutely everything. I do wonder if I would have ever really questioned to the extent that I did otherwise. Even though I had read a lot of philosophy, I do think that I might not have really entered into the limbo wasteland if I had not been pushed into emotional discomfort. I would also say that I have also had a fair amount of setbacks since university and this has made me open to speculation a lot.

So, I do think that apart from the whole question of whether university life and its opportunities for experimentation, there is the other one as to how much our life experiences pushes us out of our comfort zones. I would say that for most of my adult life I have felt pushed beyond the threshold of feeling 'comfortable', to the point where, at times, so in many ways I am prepared to explore and experiment with ideas. So, it is not that I don't wish to be right, but that I feel that I have gone beyond the stage of clinging to a specific set of beliefs.

Perhaps the question which I would pose for anyone reading this, is how far their experience has led them to question their systems of belief?

You may be talking more about art therapy than a form of philosophy in referring to art to express oneself but it could just come under the category of creative art. Aesthetics is probably a lot more complex because it is a field of philosophy in its own right. When you speak about a person drawing circles and geometrical shapes, I am of the view that it is best not to try to categorise it with a specific meaning outrightly but to ask the person to say what meaning this has, because this would depend on the significance for the person making the art.

I guess I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and that is because I was raised a Catholic and have moved away from what I believed but it did not happen overnight, but over a few years. As a teenager I was extremely religious and even when I started university. It was during that time, based on reading and many factors that I really began exploring and entering into a sort of limbo wilderness. I think I was uncomfortable with the limbo for some time, but grew used to it.

Also, I am used to being in the situation of having to not vocalise my views and feelings at work in mental health care. This has been mainly in working with patients, because one cannot disclose about one's life or views in this work. So, I am used to having to try not to get heated.

So, when you speak of conflicts being like 'a can of worms' , I am probably used to keeping the worms encased in my brain. Perhaps my head will explode like a nuclear weapon one day, just like the title of one of my favourite albums, by The The, 'Mindbomb.'

You speak about children being institutionalised and what I would add is that older people are being institutionalised more and more. Obviously, this is questionable, but I realise that it is complicated because people don't all have family members who are able to care for them. Also, people are living much longer. That means that if people are living into their nineties it could mean potentially that their children could themselves be in their seventies.

I suppose the biggest problem with institutions is if it is a way of dumping people who are less able, as a means of casting them out as the forgotten citizens.

The only one thing I would add about romantic philosophy is that it may not be all rainbows and sunsets. It may be also the decadent romance of encountering the shadowy figure of the gothic depths, like a fictional vampire romance story. Perhaps some would say that this is not romantic, but there can be dark romance and this applies to philosophy because it can be about encountering the depths and the heights.

This is an unusual question. I am not sure how you are imagining the discussion to proceed but the thought that springs to my mind is that of the blank sheet of paper when one begins to put thoughts to paper. Often when one starts to think about an idea it is not with pen or paper in hand, but the whole generation of thought seems an important process.

When I have been working on ideas for some project I often feel that I have to psyche myself up, usually with a few cups of coffee. I think about it as being about the whole creative process, and it feels like going into another dimension for a time, and bringing back the treasured gems of the other reality. But that is my experience of generating ideas and I am aware that others may experience it very differently.

It is quite funny that you see this thread as being similar to the one I wrote on prejudice because I see them as rather different. I suppose that the similarity is that obviously I am the same person on my various threads. Generally, I think that some people have engaged in both, but I have noticed some different people replying to the different threads.

This is the first forum I have ever used. So, even though I have written many posts and threads, I only joined in last September, so I am relatively new. I can't believe that it is only just over 5 months that I have been using it because it seems like much longer. I think that it is as if time has slowed down with all the lockdown restrictions. I don't know if I would ever join another one. I certainly wouldn't right now as this one is keeping me busy enough. I have sometimes felt recently that I have taken up philosophy as a full time pursuit, but it definitely feels like a worthwhile one for the present time.

It sounds like a good idea, so perhaps it might be worth finding your work if you still have it, and preparing it to launch as a book. If you put all that time into it, I am sure that you must have done a lot of work and it is an unusual idea, although that is not to say that nobody has written on the topic since the 1990s.

Yes, I think that there are many deep seated prejudices against people with learning disabilities. I have come across many well educated people who believe that all attempts to abort such people should take place, and I think that in the case of someone who finds out at an early stage of pregnancy that they are going to have a profoundly disabled child, physically or mentally must have an agonising decision to make. It is hard to imagine the full extent of this.

One thing which I have discovered in London and England as a whole is that many of the most severe learning disabled people are in institutions in remote places, in outskirts of villages. To me, this shows how they are cast out of view, in hidden places, where many will never have to catch sight of them.

One other prejudice from the earlier part of the last century was of unmarried pregnant women who were often incarcerated indefinitely in mental health institutions. I believe that there was a decision to free them back into the community at one point, but I think this was problematic because they had not acquired the necessary skills to live independently.

Yes, I think that many are inclined to make assumptions about the way certain people feel about how they present themselves without really entering into the meaning for those particular individuals.

I once worked with a Muslim woman who was having a conflict with a senior manager who took objection to her coming to work wearing a head covering. It was in an advice office and the senior manager had objected that people coming into the office would make all kinds of assumptions about the person they were coming to see for advice wearing certain Muslim attire. The woman, who was in fact tolerant of all people of all identities felt really upset about the objection because she saw her covering as one of personal expression. From my experience of knowing Muslim women in England, they do frequently wear their traditional clothing with a sense of expression and pride in their identity.

Perhaps, I have not found the set of ideas that I am truly aligned towards. I find ideas which I believe are important but not to be point that I would wish to defend them above all else.

I would also say that I do think in terms of systems, and see thinking about building up parts within larger parts. I am also pluralist, but definitely not in favour of sheer relativism. The big difference is that relativism is about seeing truth as being many different views but with equal value. Pluralism involves more of a picture of putting together a picture of truth by drawing upon the composite parts.

I also believe that we are at a strange time in the development of ideas. We can view the expanse of ideas from the panorama of history and geography in a way that few have been able to do in the past, especially with the internet and downloading available to us. This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown, in the widest senses possible.

Yes, I quite like the video as I do even read a bit of fantasy which involves sword fighting.

I am not really against becoming down to a specific view. When I first began reading philosophy, I came more from a fixed view because I was brought up as a Catholic and had not fully questioned this. Having done this I have a fairly open mind and if anything, it is often that when I read certain writing it is simply that I am not convinced fully.

As for developing my own philosophy, I had not done any written philosophical writing in a long time until finding this site in September. I do feel that discussions on this site have got me thinking, so I will wait and see what happens.

Thanks, glad you like the thread. I am in favour of thinking about thinking.

I am not trying to suggest the idea of becoming a philosophical jellyfish. One thing which I think is true is that to counter any position, it is not just about focusing on the weaknesses of the opposing one. I would say that the quality argument sees the strengths in the other side and works towards refuting these strengths.

Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard.

I am certainly not trying to suggest that people should not be saying what they think and fighting for what they believe. I think that expression of emotions and thoughts is a central aspect of human life. I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others.

I definitely think that all our ideas should be seen as interpretation and not as concrete truths. In particular, the whole emphasis is science is of models. We could say that all thought can be seen as forming models and the models themselves must never be taken as an actual reality.

A simple example of this is news coverage. On a daily basis we watch the television for the latest headlines to try to be aware of what is going on in the world. However, the whole sociological understanding of news has shown how this coverage is biased, usually in the slant of those in power.

Your point that, 'There are many circumstances where we cannot agree just to disagree' has a lot of bearing on many discussions, especially in politics and religion. Sometimes, people try to convince others of their opinions, with such determination to change the views of the opposition. I particularly recall how evangelical Christian students were often in a mission to spread the word to the 'heathen' ones and I did not see many 'conversions' happening in this way.

One aspect which I often notice in philosophy is that people often see the whole process of discussion to be about etching out difference and focus on this. I am not saying that I am not in favour of clarifying difference and distinction because it is part of seeing detail and about being analytical. However, in my own approach, I also like to be aware of common ground of thinking as well because I think that this is a very useful too, rather just seeing discussion as a battle.

.
What you have said makes a lot of sense. I think that we cannot ever remove all prejudice from our thinking and behaviour. I see it is an ideal to work with. It could be seen as about trying to make what is unconscious revealed consciously, or of seeking to become aware of our blindspots.

I can give you a little example for reflection. A couple of years ago, I was having a discussion with a female friend about music. She remarked that my music was all male singers and bands. I said that was the music I liked. She suggested that I was sexist in my music taste. I was a bit cross, saying that it was more about taste rather than anything else. However, since being in that conversation I have found that I am more aware of this area of preference and I have found some female singers I like now.

My example is outside the usual structure of thinking about prejudice because music taste is a personal preference. It is not as if I am a judge in a music contest. But I guess that on some level personal preference is something that has a collective dimension. If the people in power exercise their personal preferences most of the time it can be a way in which the status quo is maintained, unquestioned.

So, what I am really saying is that the main thing is that we think about preference and try to understand the whole nature in which prejudice, if only subtle, impacts on the way we see and live.

I am probably not a romantic in the everyday sense because I dislike a lot of mainstream chart music and books which are about love etc, finding most of it rather 'slushy'. However, I have been told that I am a romantic in the sense of being a romantic, in being an idealistic thinker, in other words, a romantic philosopher. So, I would wonder about how the whole tradition of romantic philosophy sits in relation to the thread which you have started.

I was interested in the point you make about stories because I enjoy fiction writing. That is based on the perspective of the narrator, even if it is from the third person omniscient narrator. It is a limited view, with bias. Perhaps, philosophy should be seen as a form of storytelling. I would be happy to see it that way, with competing pictures of truth, but I am not sure that everyone else would be willing to see their views in such a way. Generally, I think that we should not see our own ideas and opinions too concretely. They capture our perception at a given moment, and hopefully are not static, but evolving stories.

I suppose it is faith, but I probably don't use the term very often due to religious connotations. I would guess that I want my ideas and myself to fly in some way or another. But, I want to be able to distinguish the two, as if I am leaping from an aeroplane by parachute.

I think that most people are not aware of the role that ego plays in arguing views. I would say that this awareness alongside a mixture of certainty and certainty about areas of belief is important, in order to be free to rise into the skies.

Absolutely, and I am a listener, so I will probably not survive long in the stampede of egos, asserting that they are right. But, I don't just want to end up as a squashed fly. I want to soar to the unknown, unchartered skies to see all the new panoramic perspectives and angles.
.

I definitely agree that there is so much projection going on, and people pretending to have the answers to so many political, religious and philosophical questions.

Your view is very interesting.

I guess that I would just wish that we could go beyond this, but people tell me that I am an idealist. I am not wishing to deny the importance role of egoism as expressed by @Gus Lamarch, but I do believe in awareness of the whole way in which we construct the whole pursuit of philosophy. Perhaps it should be seen as an art rather than a sport. In saying this, I am implying that it is about creating vision rather than about a game of winning.

That is a good question. I probably have fairly low self esteem and many who are considered wrong by many insist that they are right. Philosophy may even be a war of egos, fighting for their right for dominion in the claim of the grasp of truth