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.

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.