I am glad that I am not alone.

In many situations, I am prepared to admit that I am wrong, or uncertain. Does this mean that I am cast into the scrap heap, while those who claim their essential rightness reign, ranked as the true philosophers?

I would agree that being able to 'remove pride and self esteem from the market place of ideas' is central, although I am not sure that everyone is yet able to achieve this at the current time. Perhaps it an aspiration for us to aim towards, in a climate and spirit of free thinking.

Personally, I am doing all I can to follow restrictions, but it is almost a year of being not allowed to do most of the things I have done through my life. There is also no foreseeable end in sight, so I am spending time contemplating and writing philosophy questions I probably would not have otherwise considered fully at all. I have no idea if other people on this forum are coming from this perspective or not.

I guess that I am seeing how our ideas are so important to us subjectively. I am also wondering about how any person becomes defensive in protecting their own viewpoints. I have found one writer who questions the whole nature of criticism of one's viewpoint. Chuck Chakrapani, (2016) in 'The Good Life Handbook: Epictetus' Stoic Classic Enchirdion, says:
'When someone criticises you, they do so because they believe they are right. They can only go by their views, not yours. If their views are wrong, it is they who suffer the consequences.'

I throw the quote for reflection, although still uncertain if the question I have seen will be taken seriously by most members of the forum.

I agree with your emphasis on 'the impermanence of things knowable'. I think I would be in line with this perspective on many of the big areas of philosophy.

What I do notice though, in the replies have so far is that they all address the problem I arose with the word "you". I was trying to raise a problem which I believe is central to philosophy and all thinkers , not just a personal one.

I have been wondering this afternoon, if perhaps my question is completely ridiculous. It could be that lockdown is sending me crazy in even asking about how important it is to question being right, or even wrong. Perhaps I am overthinking, or have I raised a question which is uncomfortable to even think about?

I think that what may happen is that in the near future we are going to have restrictions placed on us to try to enforce healthy lifestyles upon us. I have seen snippets of this in bits of news, such as the idea of sugar tax. I am not in favour of unhealthy living and there is no denying that obesity, heart disease and diabetes are on the rise.

What I am wary of is totalitarian regimes slipping in the backdoor. One concern which I have about the way is which we are becoming used to living with social restrictions in the pandemic, is what is coming next. I think that it is a possibility that in the future we are likely to have our life choices curbed by a whole array of rules and regulations under the rhetoric of health.

It is interesting that you both seem to be coming from opposite angles. Outlander says , 'What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really?' In contrast, Khaled says, 'I don't think the emotional relationship is correlated with how correct or incorrect your position is.' They are opposing positions on how we think about the arguments we form. I am not sure that it is possible to develop ideas without a mixture of emotion and reasoning. However, I think that it is worth reflecting on how these two elements come into play when we think that we are right and others are wrong.

I am certainly not implying that many of the questions we ask have actual right or wrong answers, but sometimes it is easy to think that they do.

One thought that I have around your question is the whole way in which the child begins to differentiate self from others in childhood. Research suggests that this is a core aspect of development prior to identity formation.

I also wonder how different the sense of 'me' is to the sense of 'I'. The main difference seems to be that 'me' is about reference to oneself as a being whereas the 'I' is more about observer consciousness.

Your question is perhaps another angle on the classic one, who am I?

I am certainly not endorsing becoming overweight or addiction but I do have questions about the moralistic nature and tone of some health promotion programs. I do think that there is a bit too much preaching going on.

I think that your question is a good one. It raises the underlying question about whether destiny exists. Certainly, some people do believe that in fate and destiny. I am a bit sceptical of the idea of fate, although I do sometimes feel that whatever I do I keep facing certain situations and do wonder if this is part of my path, or my own life quest.

The whole question of luck implies fortune and the how much is random? It is a big question but I do think that we have some ability to have some influence through intention. Perhaps we can create luck through being in the state of mind to be lucky as expressed by writers on the law of attraction.

I would say that characteristics such as being overweight fall into a grey area within the realm of prejudice. It is certainly not regarded as one of the protected characteristics. However, I have known a number of people who really felt discriminated against on this basis. I know that you say that it is something that can be overcome, but I am not sure that it is that simple for all individuals as I do think that some people have more of a tendency to put on weight than others.

But my understanding of prejudice is based on Goffman's understanding of stigma, in which a specific aspect of the person is an overriding factor in their interactions and has implications for the whole nature of identity. Personally, I had really bad acne as a teenager, which I did believe was beyond my control, and I did feel that was stigmatising. I am also quite a bit below average height and I would say that all such aspects about personal life do have implications for how people treat us.

So, I am would certainly say that the protected characters which are focused on are essential, but I think that any wider discussion of prejudice needs to embrace thinking about assumptions about people in the broadest sense. I think that the wider picture of assumptions enables more reflection about the whole way in which we form assumptions and allows for depth rather than just what can appear to be 'preaching' about equal opportunities.

I would say that psychiatric disorders is a very specialist area and it would be very worrying if people just leapt in with opinions and I hope that I was not doing that. My attempt to answer the question, apart from my work background, was based on my own personal experience of premonitions as a teenager. I actually referred myself to a psychiatrist about it and he did not give me a diagnostic label. In a way, it is a coincidence that it was me who read and responded to the question.

However, I have no idea of the original thread writer's intentions. I would be wary of starting a thread on psychiatry, but it is not as if aspects of it are not discussed at all. It is such a central aspect of life and so many people have psychiatric problems of some kind. I have experienced clinical depression and think it is likely that some other members of the forum may have experience some mental health problems at some point in life. So, I am not sure that psychiatry should be out of bounds because it is specialised. I would say that it needs to be handled with care. But, part of the issue is that any thread can have unhelpful and insensitive opinions.

Perhaps the person who created the thread will be able to explain the rationale of why they wrote it in the first place.

In some ways, I see your point and it was not me that began the thread. However, if that is the case then many of the active threads would be beyond the scope of philosophy. So, how does one go about defining where philosophy begins and ends?

Your question is a bit complicated because it has two possible underlying assumptions or questions.

Firstly, it involves the one of premonitions. In your final statement you are implying that there is no scientific proof to suggest that premonitions can exist. On the other hand, is there scientific evidence that premonitions cannot exist? It is a grey area, open to speculation and interpretation of personal testimonies.

Also, you are suggesting that the psychiatrists would definitely be regarding the existence of premonitions as psychosis. I would say that many psychiatrists are inclined to diagnose people who explain unusual experiences as psychosis, but that is not to say that all have fixed views about matters of the unknown.

I would say that I have engaged with psychiatrists, and other mental health professions, in work and situations, on the subject of premonitions and other unusual topics and some of them are have very unique points of view.

I would say that psychiatrists would differ in how to respond to your scenario. It may also depend how the patient explained the story. I certainly feel it would be mistaken if the person was diagnosed on the basis of the scenario, unless there were other sources of concern. Of course, I am not a psychiatrist but have worked in mental health care and been involved in the psychiatric assessment process. I think that it would be unfortunate if your person acquired a diagnosis and ended up on antipsychotic medication. Perhaps a bit of counselling support to discuss the whole coincidence would be the best start and some follow up to see if there were any further indications of psychosis beyond this would provide a fuller picture, as ongoing assessment.

The division between rich and poor permeates society and it can be invisible at times. In some ways, it is less clear than in other societies because education can allow for a whole lot of movement. Also, there is so much of a spectrum that it can be a continuum. I would say that in most cases people at the extreme ends of the spectrum are subject to hostile prejudiced projection.

The idea of pointing to people as smelling can be a very subtle, but powerful form of prejudice equal to that of perceiving others as less clean. The thing is that people can often back up these claims in relation to certain people having poor personal hygiene. Unfortunately, sometimes when people are depressed they are less inclined to wash.
Really, I think that the key issue is to help, with sensitivity, the person to improve in order to enable them to have less of a battle against potential prejudice against the person encounter all the subtle prejudices towards mental illness.


Another pervasive prejudice in our society is that of people being overweight. Of course, in general the population in Western societies are getting larger. But, people who are overweight are often perceived and treated so negatively. Many teenagers have become anorexic as a result of being told as children that they are too fat.

I would guess that this whole area of subtle prejudice is about the whole social discourse of interaction and stereotypes, in general.

I think that the difference between scorn against an idea and a person is complex. I once was in a situation in which a white woman commented to a black woman, who was dressed in white trousers, 'I have never seen you looking so clean before.' The black woman spoke of being so hurtful, and it incorporate ideas about dirt and cleanliness, which are often projected onto others. I think this is getting into the social anthropology of prejudice, which involves cultural ideas.

Yes, it is horrible when teachers and other people just seem hostile and sometimes we don't always know why, and are left wondering. We can try to put it down to certain characteristics, everything from race, gender, dislike of short or tall people, or hair colour etc. It is sometimes not clear.

That is where it gets complicated because if, for example, a black person gets treated badly it can be say the other person is racist. But, it would be hard to prove in a court of law, unless it is overt.

I agree we are individuals and it is unfortunate that we get put in little boxes all the time. Also, sometimes when people treat us less than others it may not be about prejudice, in terms of specific characteristics, but simply that about being disliked by the other person.

This still is can be prejudice, in being about preconceived notions. I once knew someone who said to me that the first time she met me she did not like me, but this changed as she got to know me. At least, she was willing to go beyond first impressions, because I don't think that people always do.

If this bias comes into marking of exam papers, I am sure that people make similar biases in just about every part of life. I am not speaking of you, but everyone. It probably operates on who gets served first in shops and who gets the best housing and an endless variety of matters.

The only thing that can happen is for people to be made more aware. Most situations in life cannot be monitored, so beyond this, biases probably cannot be eliminated.

It is brave of you to admit to this. I think bias occurs consciously or unconsciously all the time.

I think it probably goes far beyond being about certain characteristics. I remember handing in a piece of work at school, in which I forgot to put my name on and it ended up with the highest mark that teacher ever gave to me.

On some courses I have been on work is labelled with a candidate number instead of names to make marking so much fairer.

Unconscious bias is recognised within work interviewing. Training courses are being designed to address it, but from what I have read in literature, there is not clear evidence that such training really helps overcome the problem fully.

I am not sure about the point of people with alcohol problems not seeing themselves as part of a group. I am thinking of the whole history of the AA movement. I would say that self- help groups have been a significant force in uniting people with alcohol problems and other issues which people identify as a focus.

I do agree that it is not clear how long the concern for the elderly and vulnerable will last. It could be that the luxury of the stability we have known in the socio-economic climate of our times has given rise to this. My own feelings about the future fluctuate. We will have to wait and see what happens in the future. I am inclined to think we are at a very critical juncture at the moment.

I just think that it is useful to think about generalisations, to think what lies behind them. I am in favour of looking behind surfaces, on a psychological and philosophical level.

Is that some dark humour?

I just noticed your paragraph on the issue of prejudice in institutions and this is quite a topic in itself.

I can only speak from the basis of working within mental health institutions. One thing I was aware of was internalised prejudice in many ways. I believe that racism, sexism and the whole spectrum of prejudices were taking place in the organisations but it was hushed up, hidden away. However, on this hidden level prejudice was rife, but many staff were aware of it behind the scenes, closeted beneath policy agendas. Some of this was a backlash against attempts to overcome prejudice.

Also, many unwell patients had psychologically internalised prejudices. Here, I would say that it was not always the white patients who had prejudiced views against black people but the black ones too. There were a fair amount of black patients who wished to engage with white staff only.

Organisations and institutions are a very interesting area in which the whole dynamics of prejudice, and attempts to overcome it, may be seen in abundance.

One thing I notice in your comment is that in the final paragraph you speak about the 'purposes' which prejudices serve and how this is 'a starting point for talking about prejudices and how this can be overcome.' This is an important point because it is connected to the question of whose advantage it is to overcome prejudice. This is where the power issue lies.

I would say that the whole history of liberation has involved questions of advantage and power. The most obvious ones are gender as well as race. These inequalities were addressed because they involved majorities. Half the population are female, so addressing sexism had to occur and white supremacy had to be addressed because it is not as if white people are really in the majority throughout the world.

The whole question of survival through competition for resources throws many questions open too. What has happened in the time of the pandemic is that the needs of the vulnerable have been a key concern. In particular, we do live in an ageist society in many ways and, at the same time, certainly in England, the whole focus of concern has been protecting the vulnerable. If we had been at an earlier stage of history, it could have been that there had been less concerned for the elderly. I do believe that we are at a stage in the life of humanity which has transcended the emphasis on 'the survival of the fittest'.

I am inclined to think that one of the problems with any current rise in Nazi values is more of a backlash against the way in which most people have already overcome a fair amount of prejudices already.

I can see that I am idealistic and that this has limitations. I am fearful of any rise in Nazism or any oppressive regime. Personally, I think the whole problem is extremely complex, but I am interested to know of what potential solutions you see, if any. Okay, I may be idealist but, surely, this is a better option than indifference.

Also, in consideration of prejudice I am not just thinking of collective movements, but the existence of prejudice in daily life.

Your discussion of the relationship between suffering and prejudice raises some important points. I would say that it is so easy when one is feeling negative to see faults in others. Suffering can lead us to restrictive seeing or it can pave the way to compassion. I would say that I have found certain experiences of suffering have made me more opposed to prejudice. A simple example is how being teased a lot at school for many reasons probably made me dislike bullying of any kind. I think that there is a clear relationship between bullying and the oppression arising from prejudice.

Yes, we are all in various hierarchies. When I was working in mental health care, I was in the relationship of power over others. People had to to approach me to meet their needs. In that respect I was in the position of authority, and had to be mindful of the way I used power. We are living in a variety of situations involving power dynamics and it is useful to think of the way we face prejudice against ourselves or against others in those situations. I know that in many group situations that I am not that good at asserting myself. But it also makes me aware of others not being able to do this.

In many life situations, it is about us seeing how our preconceived ideas about others impact on the way we interact with them. Often, people judge by appearances. One book which I found useful for thinking about this, is 'Stigma' by Erving Goffman. In this book, Goffman speaks about how one characteristic of a person can stand out to the point where it clouds the perception of that person. I think that I have seen this when staff treat in public places, such as libraries or pubs treat certain individuals who may be dressed shabbily in an unpleasant way.

One particular group of people who are subject to prejudice are the mentally ill. I have been in social situations where I see people who are unwell mentally being treated without respect. However, I think that some people regard me as a bit 'strange' or eccentric, so I have a certain sense of being an 'outsider.'

But you are correct to say that we are all within various positions in various hierarchies. It is useful basis for reflection, as well as the way we relate to suffering. When we are feeling downcast, we can direct our energy negatively towards other or perhaps begin to feel compassion for others.

Yes, I agree. Goodnight.

If you scroll back a couple of pages you will find my thread on is the material the absolute reality. You might find some ideas to think about. I don't think anyone has written on it for about 4 or 5 days, but you could add to it. It might even spark off some interesting debate from some hard materialists which would be interesting indeed as so many threads are being started by those from a religious persuasion.

Surely, the whole point of joining a philosophy forum is to explore other angles of views. I come with the whole idea of embracing other new ways of seeing. If anything, I am more disappointed when I have been engaging in a thread discussion for a week, and in spite of listening to other's points of view, I still come away with the similar outlook I had.

I wrote a thread on material reality and I would have been very interested if I had really become convinced of determinism . I am not a religious person, but have inclined towards non materialist thinking, but it is not without openness to an alternative way of thinking. If we are only wishing to affirm what we already believe it is hardly worth stepping outside the comfort zone and interacting with others who think differently.

When you say that you would rather 'know rather unknown' I am not sure what you mean exactly. I am not sure if you are talking about speaking of the known in terms of thinking about known aspects of death. Surely, you don't mean that you would like to die to find out. You might get a horrible shock and I don't just mean on the other side. I have come across people who tried to commit suicide and ended up disabled, blind etc.
But I don't really think that you mean that you would like to know in this way, because you said that it is the mass who are suicidal.

On the subject of the idea of what exists after death, I would say that I am not convinced that the ideas we have about the physical world being the only realm are literally all there is because I did a bit of psychedelic experimentation and it felt like a vast doorway into another reality....Of course, it was artificially induced but I am not sure it was artificial entirely. It had an infernal element as well, so personally I would rather step out of this world with some preparation.

In what sense do you think that the ego continues?I don't know about you but I am not sure that I think that I would have a legacy. I am not exactly Kurt Cobain or Richie from the Manic Street Preachers, or Van Gogh. And, certainly if I ever committed suicide I can think of a few people who would be affected terribly. I know what its like to have had friends commit suicide. It led me down a chaotic spiral for several years.

What is interesting is that your view is the complete contrast to the Eastern thinkers. They suggest that the ego dies and the more subtle bodies, including the astral live on. To be honest, I am not sure what happens at death. But I just have this intuitive feeling that however I die the worst possibility would be suicide. I do see killing another as a worst possibility than suicide. There again, someone on another post earlier this evening told me that I am a bit of a romantic and idealist.

What do you mean when you say that those who decide not to continue are deciding 'to take another step in their externalisations in existence'? I thought that you believed that death was the end of all existence.

I would say that I come from the perspective of having 2 friends who committed suicide while I was at University and 1 later. I often wonder what their lives would have been like if they had lived.

I definitely have dark moments and sometimes decide to take risks, or experiment instead of doing anything drastic. Some of my best life decisions have been made in response to despair.

Of course, there are all the spiritual arguments, but I am not someone who likes to preach.

Yes, I remember someone telling me that at work last year. I am still interested in hearing your point of view on the problem we have facing humanity, regarding the rise of Nazism once again.

One of the ways I see it is that we are all going to die eventually, so what's the rush?

I think that both of us and others are concerned about what could be happening, or going to happen in the world. Remembering back to snippets of discussion I had with you In another thread, you spoke about how I saw ideas about superiority as problematic and you disagreed. I still see prejudice as a problem arising in relation to the dynamics of people trying to assert their sense of superiority over certain others. How do you view the source of the problem relating to a new wave of Nazism in the world?

Perhaps it was a joke. That is the problem with online discussions. There is no non verbal interaction and written words can become too concrete. Perhaps none of the tension would have arisen the other night if we were in real life discussion. It may have all been melodrama.