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.

I am not in the field of education but the one idea which I believe sounds a bit along the lines you are thinking of are on the model created by Rudolf Steiner. I don't know of any texts but you could google on his model of education.

Yes, I agree and I am even still getting into discussion on the term 'defect' in the thread I have spoken about. I believe in talking about prejudice without fear. I am not someone to wish to sweep it all into hidden corners. I suppose that the art is to be able to address it without it becoming overwhelming. So far, this thread has not been one into which people have thrown their prejudices and I am grateful for this, as when I composed this I was a bit fearful about what I might unleash.

If at any point this thread became swamped by prejudices, I would probably bow out of it, at least for some time, just to maintain my own sanity. But so far, the discussion is positive. I am not saying that I want people to avoid discussing any conflicts, because I believe that everyone has some negative attitudes. I am not in favour of everything being politically correct. It can be all surface without any deeper corresponding value.

I have astigmatism too and other eye problems which could be called defects in technical medical terminology, but I hope that this would just useful as part of my medical records and not beyond. I think that it depends on the context and how a term is used and when it is is used to categorise a group of people on the basis of a characteristic then it is another matter. On some level, none of us are 'perfect' but I still maintain that the word defect has a derogatory tone.

Do you not see that a title seeing a whole group of people as being defective is problematic? The whole point of this thread was to query why the original was deleted. Perhaps this thread is serving some purpose and that is why I am even writing an answer in it. But I do believe that it is unfortunate that this thread is necessary on a site like this.

I would agree with you, but it is so complicated because certain attribudes are so deep. In particular, this thread is hovering next to the one questioning the deletion of one about a thread containing the word defect. From my point of view, I would never use the word defect to describe any other human being at all, because I see it as a term of abuse. However, other people see differently. So, what does one do? If people who use such language are prevented from certain expression it will surface in another way.

I think that prejudice arises in the collective unconscious and at this very time aspects of hatred are permeating the world, even this site.

That is what was happening in the time of Nazi Germany and, at the moment, I think we are on the potential brink of a new dark age. I am just hoping that it can be averted, or dissipated somehow. There are many positive attitudes and signs as well as the negative ones. Perhaps philosophy can help in this.

I was rather relieved by your response and then saw the response, of someone trying to justify the whole question, with 'Depends on the defect. I thought that after a night that this thread would fizzle out, but it doesn't seem it will. I came to this forum because I wanted philosophy discussion and as far as I see it this thread is lowering the whole quality of the site. Even as I write this, I can see the originator of this post is writing an angry one to me, after I expressed my feelings about the thread earlier. It just seems that some people don't respect that it is a philosophy site rather than a dumping ground for hostility.

I am so fed up with this thread. I was up half the night before last, reading and writing on it. I don't blame anyone for that, as I was ridiculous by doing so.

Today, I started the thread on prejudice because I think that the topic needs to be explored in a far more constructive way, However, I am not sure that the intention of the thread was about prejudice as such, but it was about censorship. But, I do believe that attitudes and questions about prejudice and questions about assumptions because the idea of 'defect' was explored. But, currently this thread is just about moaning.

Edit:
Please don't take this as a response to your comment. It just feels so horrible when this thread keeps popping up, but I am coming from the angle of not liking the term 'defect' applied to anyone.

Thank you for sharing your experience. Of course, I would imagine that you have made all conceivable efforts to educate your children as widely and carefully as possible.

I would imagine that there is so much variation. When I was growing up I think that there was a lot of variation on how much input children get on issues of social concern. I have to admit that I was rather shocked at some of the attitudes I came across in my school.

One thing I did not agree with was the attitudes towards hierarchical banding. One day, when I and a couple of friends from the lowest class were standing on a piece of grass which was technically 'out of bounds', I got called into the deputy headmaster's office and told to stay with the people in my class. I nodded but did complain of the attitude of the teacher to my fellow classmates, and they seemed to agree with the teacher that I should not be spending time with people in the lower band class.

Recently, I was in conversation with someone from school, who was in the lower band, and I heard how it was such a devastating experience being ranked in a low class. I am not saying that banding can be eliminated completely, but I think that there is a danger if ideas about superiority and inferiority are entailed. I do think it calls for sensitivity and that was not what I saw at school, especially in the way teachers spoke about the classes, especially as one was also often referred to as the 'remedial' one.

I don't know how banding systems vary and how much it has changed but I think that this can be a whole subtext of prejudice, as the people in the lower grades are likely to be the ones from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

I have gone off the topic raised by Athena, I am afraid. But I am sure that family attitudes and stories, and whole systems of values are so important. I probably would not be writing this post if I had not come from a family which valued questioning the social order.

I am rather wary of you concern to protect the plight of the ruling class. To what extent do you believe that they are suffering? I would think that any revolutionary movement would be to aid those in poverty.

I liked your title, thinking that you were writing a thread on depression, as it is a prevailing undercurrent of our time. But, after reading your thread introduction, I just feel like lying down and listening to The Doors, 'When the Music's Over.'

Thank you, you have managed to upload a very song. Music has such a powerful means to confront prejudice. I am sure that Bob Marley and many other black artists have made an enormous impact in addressing racism. Perhaps the philosophers should stand back in awe at some of the most powerful entertainers, in touching the depths of emotion in conveying truth and wisdom.

I am not sure to what extent people sit down and tell stories to young children no , spelling out wisdom and morality. I would imagine it varies a lot, but I do think that young children are probably starting to spend more and time on computers. Perhaps people on the forum who have children, or work in education, may be able to speak about this.

You advocate the idea of reflection and dispelling of 'instinctual thoughts'. Do you think that the majority of people, and I am not just speaking of members of the forum, but the wider population, do this? I think that what you are saying sounds easy in principle but, is much harder to put into practice, even with the best human, or even, philosophical intentions. I do see it as a worthwhile goal.

I would say that prejudice is about visible and invisible differences, as well as beliefs about superiority.
As George Orwell said in 'Animal Farm':
'ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.'

I understand that you are someone who is not racist. I was not brought up to be racist, but I grew up in an area which was white. I played with the children who were black or Asian but did see them being treated badly. One of my Asian friends got knocked unconscious while walking home from school.

I am also half Irish and when my dad first came to England he felt that he experience some racism against Irish people, so it is not straightforward entirely.

I would certainly say that people are not guilty for the fantasies which arise, but perhaps it matters how we react to our fantasies. I would see consciousness awareness of them as being the most important aspect, as processing them.

You speak of belief being conscious. I would say that this is true on the most basic level when we speak about our beliefs. However, this is only the starting point and the whole philosophy underlying cognitive behavioral therapy, which is one of the most recognised, effective forms of therapy is one which recognises that beliefs have underlying assumptions of which we are probably not so aware.

I don't know what to say, other than ask if you believe that prejudice matters at all?

Where does instinct end and where does belief come in? Where does emotion fit into the picture?

Let us hope that the mental health system is becoming more aware of biases, such as racism. I have worked in mental health care and there is dialogue. However, I would say that there are interesting dynamics going on in mental and care.

Having worked in a number of mental health care settings, I am aware that most of the consultant psychiatrists are white, while a certain of the more junior doctors are from ethnic backgrounds. On the other hand, many of the nursing staff are from black and ethnic backgrounds. However, I am aware that I am speaking from the perspective of working in England, so it may be very different in other parts of the world.

I don't think that the matter is about 'flagellating oneself' about thinking about subconscious attitudes. What I am really saying is that often the idea of prejudice is seen as 'out there', rather stemming from the personal. I think that this balance needs to be readressed to some extent.
I am not denying the importance of prejudice in the real world but think that examination of it on a deeper level is the task for philosophy.

You point to the role of instincts and the way in which people are perceived as 'outsiders' and I think that this is at the core of prejudice. The fact that something is regarded as instinctual should not be seen as a basis for justification and could be seen as a naturalistic fallacy.

I take on board your point of view, but the only thing I would point out is the way in which prejudices can become systemic. It is established within research that black people are often treated differently from white ones in the mental health system. What has been apparent and even recognised amongst mental health professionals is that certain individuals, with a similar presentation who are white, are more likely to be categorised as 'paranoid schizophrenic', rather than simply 'schizophrenic'.

I would agree with you that many prejudices are learned. The most obvious is that racism was more common in the past or in certain groups of the population.

When thinking about the question, you point to the way in which projection may arise, such as a person projecting on to the alcoholic having a hidden alcohol problem. What I would say is that there is also a lot of prejudice against people with alcohol problems amongst many who do not have any alcohol difficulties. There are all kinds of presumptions made about the person's life and lifestyle.

What I do believe is that prejudice is a subtle force. It is most obvious in obvious forms of discrimination against minority groups. However, that is the tip of the iceberg, ranging to the much more subtle. Where does 'dislike' end and prejudice begin?

I would not say that any human being can live up to the ideal of being free of any prejudice, in the way that anyone can achieve complete wisdom. However, I do point to it as an ethical ideal worth striving towards.

You point to the danger of homelessness, in the pursuit. I am not sure of the actual connection. Many are on the verge of homelessness and I could become so at some stage in life, although I certainly hope not. But, what I am thinking is that homeless people are a particular group of people subject to prejudice. Perhaps prejudice against the homeless is a key aspect of this question.

I do believe that you have an important idea in connecting premonitions with the future. I think it also raises the question whether the past determines the future, or could the future determine the past and present too?Perhaps, time is an illusionary construct.

I am interested in the topic you have raised but didn't respond to the actual poll because I am not sure about the terms paranormal or supernatural.

I remember having deja vu experiences in childhood and this developed more into premonitions in adolescence and beyond. The premonitions were mainly of an unpleasant nature because I experienced vivid premonitions about 8 times before certain people died. I have experienced some premonitions since but not recently. One thing I do experience sometimes is when walking down the street, I think I see someone I know and realise that I have made a mistake. Shortly afterwards, I really encounter the person I had imagined seeing earlier.

One idea which I find helpful in thinking about deja vu and premonitions is Jung idea of synchronicity, which is about 'meaningful coincidences'. It is about patterns arising in the natural world and life.

Generally, I think that life is a lot more complex than most people believe and I believe that parapsychology has become a neglected area within psychology.

I don't think that any of this is about whether discussions are compelling or not to one another. I think it is more about whether topics are sensitive. The one on masturbation was different from this one because it began with an actual philosophical question about ethics and I don't think that it has been explored much in this way before. I am probably going to be remembered notoriously on the site for my passionate interest in the philosophy of masturbation, but I can live with that.

Yes, I think that we are able to use words carefully to fight against oppression, rather than be coerced by it. Of course, it works both ways, so it is one reason to be able to use philosophy in a beneficial way. I have found that being able to understand rhetoric gives me a way to overcome attempts to knock me down. Philosophy can be used to reclaim power.

I am glad, because I don't think that discussion on sexuality should be beyond the boundaries, or we would be going back into a Kantian atmosphere. I thought that the thread on the ethics of masturbation was really unique.

I don't know it is that straightforward. I just got a reply from my comment about philosophy and sex in which the person seemed to think that any discussion of sexuality on the forum was breaking the boundaries. So, I am not even making a jesting comment and I feel that I have broken a taboo. So, I am left feeling really confused.

I think that the thread is going in a dangerous direction.

I may be going out of my depth in getting into this discussion, especially as its after midnight, but I am writing from a genuine point of view. I was brought up as a Catholic and when I began University I was going to Christianity Union. I think that I was aware of a tension between the extent to which one was meant to suffer. I think I saw the idea adopted differently by people around me.

On one level, there was the whole emphasis on the whole tradition of those who had suffered for their belief, especially the martyrs. The whole idea of 'take up your cross and follow Christ'. On the other, there was so much celebration going on around me and people who were not suffering. I think the way I saw it was that the challenge would be how the people who I saw enjoying themselves would cope if they were really confronted with extreme suffering.

Of course, many people who are Christians do experience extreme suffering, as do other people. I would say that I think that, personally, I used to feel guilty for wishing to enjoy myself, so I probably internalised the whole emphasis on suffering.

My answer may not be the kind of level of theologicsl discussion you are hoping for, so I will accept it if you do not reply. So, if you do not engage with me again on this topic I will just throw in another angle. That is that I have read the book , 'A Course in Miracles' and even though it is not part of mainstream Christianity, I find it very interesting in the way in which it challenges the whole view that Christianity is meant to be about suffering.

All words are limited and I love words, reading or writing them but they are a reflection of our subjective truth. There was the whole philosophy of language in the Twentieth century, which became pedantic. However, it may be going the other way and perhaps the philosophers have fallen in love with the words and ideas which they speak, a bit like Narcissus gazing at himself in the water.

Nietzsche's main goals weren't happiness or virtue. He was questioning values in a much deeper way, and highlighted this in the passage you quote. Nietzsche was challenging conventional values, especially the conventional morality of Christianity.

Perhaps the problem is that sex has been repressed and suppressed area of discussion within philosophy, while being the centre of many other aspects of culture. Perhaps this tension is arising in the cracks, as part of cultural collapse. Perhaps the unconscious is bursting through like a raging fire.

Yes, I like the yogic writers on subtle bodies. I was thinking about the whole idea of subtle bodies a couple of days ago and did not write it in my discussion because I thought that it would prejudice people against what I was trying to say. I believe that anything which is regarded as 'mystical' can come under attack so easily.

I would imagine that it may not have been so problematic if it had not been in the title. It would make it stand out like a newspaper headline.

But the writer has not been banned so may get to see this discussion, hopefully.