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

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.