Both science and truth are such wide open areas. I think it is worth narrowing the matter down to the more specific. It might be worth you spelling out the actual questions you think are the underlying ones relating to truth.

You seem to be a bit bogged down with the whole idea of proof, regarding truth.

Two ideas which might be useful for you to think about are the two concepts of knowledge, a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Lacey(1996) summarises the distinction in the following way,
'A priori knowledge is that which has its justification independently of experience, though it may presuppose experience from which we get the concepts it involves', whereas, 'Knowledge which can only be by at least some appeal to experience (basically the five senses, and perhaps introspection) is called a posteriori."

I think it is important to remember these principles, which you may well be familiar with, which were discussed in detail by Kant. The knowledge which is empirical, is subject to the scientific method, and experimental proof. This is in contrast to 'a priori' knowledge which includes mathematics but can also be applied to other forms of knowledge which can be ascertained through reason.

I most certainly don't find maths would help my thinking. What I find helps most is lying on my bed for a couple of hours, and listening to a couple of albums, ranging from alternative rock etc to dance music.

As far as health priorities go, from what I have seen in England, the answers are not simple. On one hand, it is about shutting down businesses, to protect the health of the vulnerable, but that had knock on effects. So many have been thrown into complete poverty and having to go to food banks and mental health problems have escalated, with the suicide rate rising, due to social restrictions.
While the idea of thinking of protecting the 'vulnerable' seems good it is complicated, because in doing this others are becoming the newly 'vulnerable.'

I am imagining that Christmas is going to be the biggest disaster of the year for England because the rules are going to be relaxed so much for 5 days, and I think it is likely that the infection rate is going to rocket beyond all proportions, and I wonder if Christmas is that important in the current predicament. We will just have to wait and see what happens next year because I have just seen in the news that many people working in healthcare are refusing to have the vaccine. I would have thought it would be mandatory because, having worked in healthcare, I had many mandatory rules which I had to comply with.

But I do think that most of us think of ourselves and those closest to us, but it is so important not to become insular, and to be able to see matters from other people's perspectives.

I have not travelled very much but I do not mind too much because I feel that I have interacted with so many people from different backgrounds. This was true for me when I have been working. This site is the first opportunity I have experienced of discussion ideas on an international level. Recently,have moved into a house with 9 other people and each one is from a different country, although communication is a bit difficult with language differences.

I have to admit that I cannot speak any other language apart from English proficiently.I did learn some French and German at school but did not give this much attention because I focused most of my attention on art and English tliterature. Of course, the downside is that when I read books which are not written in English I have to rely on translations.

I do think that we are inclined to act like we are the end of history. I think that it is a problem and leads us to lack responsibility towards future generations and the environment.

I just looked at your links now and liked the idea by Rolf Satler, that, 'Buddhist logic is liberating because it transcends not only the restrictive either/ or of our common way of thinking, but even the both/and of the much more inclusive and healing both/and logic.'

This is an important point. In looking at ideas apart from accuracy I think the truth does include the whole dimension of the healing aspect they offer, because we are not just machines looking for answers. We are looking for thoughts to inspire us and make life worth living.

So you find it difficult to read books which are opposing views to your own. To some extent, I think that we gravitate to those which reinforce ours but sometimes I really enjoy reading opposing views. Yes, it is a good question how our bodies react to the books we read. Unless I am really immersed I usually have to get up and have a walk around every so often while I am reading.

You ask whether we are living in a more in your face culture, which is likely to become violent. Obviously everywhere is different but I think that I have noticed a bit of an improvement since the pandemic. In places where I go, like the cafes where I go to read, people seem more civil and this may be because all the lockdowns etc. have shaken up the day to day reality, often taken for granted.

Thanks for the references. Actually, a few minutes ago I just bought a book in a charity shop by Christopher Hitchens, (2011), 'Arguably,' after reading your thread about it.

There are so many writers and ideas, and one writer leads onto another. It is like digging up the collective unconscious. For the moment, I am so busy reading recently that I feel that I am doing philosophy full-time, and I would imagine that you spend most of your time reading and writing.

I got told that I was too much of a thinker and that I viewed everything from the perspective of my 'head', but of course this was one person's opinion.

But I have, nevertheless, taken it on board and try to approach life as far as I with a balance of the four modes: sensation, thought, feeling and intuition.

But, probably most people don't stop and think about this at all and I am not sure that I am more balanced now as a result.It is not always that easy to keep fully balanced. If anything, I sometimes hide my emotions, but it can be hard to express them unless it is in a supportive context. It sometimes feels safer to put on a front, and even humour can be a facade.

Yes, I will heed the advice to try to avoid falling into the well. Actually, I fell into the trout pond when I was messing around with friends on a school trip at the Cotswolds wildlife park, so I may have already followed in Thales' footsteps.

I think that there are deep meanings to emotions, including humour. I think we should analyse it but not too much in case we are in danger of overthinking and in the process become unable to laugh, or feel certain emotions.

On my art therapy course, one of my tutors told me that rationality was my dominant mode, and emotions as the inferior one so I try to avoid over analysing to redress the balance.

I would imagine that emotional experiencing is the more inferior one in most people inclined towards philosophy, so perhaps we are the ones who need to be able to laugh or cry most of all.

I hope my mum keeps her sense of humour too, because last time when I visited, she got so cross with me writing on this site that she tried to grab my phone out of my hand.

Yes, I was just thinking of what you were saying as I finally got home.

Just because I appear to laugh at certain situations I don't mean that I haven't found myself in certain situations in which I cannot find humour, especially at certain moments. The worst situation can be when others appear to be laughing at you.I definitely had that when I was at school and it was a horrible thing.

I believe in laughing when it is natural and not in a contrived way. But when everything seems completely dismal and heavy, the main thing is to just wait because it all will pass, with something entirely new arising.

I think that we can all experience some incongruous emotions, laughing in some supposedly unfunny situations and vice versa. I think that the problem is when we are expected to follow the norms. I know that I have an off beat sense of humour, in line with my metal music. I think everyone on this site would expect yours to invoive paradoxes, because you are Mr Philoparadoxus.

And you wouldn't believe it I have missed my stop on the bus and having to get the bus back, having come to Streatham instead of Tooting. I am that kind of fool, and sometimes get lost. At one job I had, we each got allocated names according to the Mr Men characters, and I got told that I was Mr Daydream.

But, seriously I don't think that humour always has an inherent logic and we have to take it for what it is and suspend judgements.

Yes, it is difficult, especially if you are a really serious person. I think that the whole situation is to find the right people to connect with, who enable you to find a lighter side to things.

I sometimes have found that people do not know how to take me. I have a sense of humour but it is a bit surreal, and in some situations I have even taken on the role of the 'fool'.

But I think it is not even just about enjoyment, whether in art, sport or music, because even if we are serious questioners I do think we need some fun, or life can just become too heavy.

Well, I am glad that you replied really, because it was during a reply to you about the idea of Biblical idea of the unpardonable sin that I caused the flood. Of course, I realise it was my fault alone, my sin of carelessness and I am lucky that my mum has a sense of humour.

But generally I think that tragedy and comedy are part of the human condition. I also have to admit that I have a bit of a dark, surrea lsense of humour and I once had a manager who totally misconstrued me playing around with the lion on my keyring, who I called Leonardo.

I just think it is so easy to jump into discussions on the forum, for worse or better. I am guilty of jumping into conversations because it is has never been easier without the shackles of the three dimensional world.

But I like to keep hold of reflective awareness, and make no judgements about others' intentions, although I do recommend mindfulness in which expressed of ideas is so instant, by the mere touch of letters on the keyboard.

It is an arena for potential mistakes and other interesting phenomena. Apart from mistakes, the consequences may be exciting, and be springboard for thoughts in the aftermath of mistakes. Perhaps the mistakes foreshadowed greater clarity of examined forms of thinking.

I definitely think that you make some very important points. I will try to look up your links and keep in touch, but I will do it gradually because apart from headaches if I read too much, I end up lying awake all night, thinking constantly But, I definitely value your ideas and will continue to communicate. In the meantime, I think that you have a lot to contribute to this and other thread discussions.

I think that we should definitely challenge ourselves by looking and reading all points of view, even if we end up with bad headaches in the process.

Yes, I am definitely interested in listening to others, with critical but not an attacking stance. In that respect, I wait and see what happens next in the enfoldment of ideas. Really, I try to keep as an open mind as possible and, perhaps, my open mindedness will be be my downfall, but I hope that it will be something more, in terms of creativity and synthesis amidst the deluge of broken down philosophies in an increasingly chaotic world.

Wishing to give stimulus for further reflection upon belief in the midst of the cultural, relativistic debate, and the whole question of science and religion, I would like to share a quotation for reflection, by Derek Wilson, (2017), in, his book, 'Superstition and Science':
'Most thinking people who seek answers to the problems of "life, the universe and everything" want two things"- certainty and freedom. They want to know that their search for meaning has led them to ultimate truth and that they have liberty to seek, formulate and live by that truth. For atheists the result of their investigation is very satisfactory: since no ultimate source of ethical authority exists they are free to live their lives exactly as they wish, choosing for themselves whatever moral restraints(if any) they elect to impose upon themselves. For the the rest of humanity life is not so simple.'

This quotation opens the doors to the panorama of possibilities arising from relativism. Any thoughts?

I am glad that you think that mistakes are an important pathway. When I write, I am aware that probably a lot of what I say will contain ideas that I will later look back upon and ask why did I ever say that? But I do believe that thinking and writing are experimental and risk taking is part of the process of discovery.

I also think that our own egos get in the way. Discussion whether in the form or talking or writing is discourse with others, exposing us to potential shame and humiliation. When I was thinking about questions of truth in other posts I ended up wondering what if the truth which I found was one which led me to complete rejection by others and whether I would be strong enough to encompass others' complete rejection? But perhaps, we just need to take risks and not fear others telling us that we have made mistakes.

Yes, I think that this whole area of discussion has so many aspects and that is why I am becoming rather overwhelmed. There are so many facets of discussion to explore, arising from each person's comments (and people getting into petty insults, which get in the way!)

My feeling is that this thread should not be a rushed one but one that grows slowly. It is not one for immediate answers or ones which avoid 'mistakes' as today's new area of speculation asks.The whole subject matter allows for experimental possibilities, mixed with careful reflection. It is not as if we have a strict deadline, as long as we are alive, for acquiring wisdom in these areas of intricate thought.

There has been so much debate in this thread that I hardly know where to step in, if at all, but I would like to take it back to the essential issues. One matter which arises when thinking of relativism and the whole dimension of questions arising between religion and science for philosophy is that we are framing the whole matter at this point in history.

The historical context of this cannot be ignored. In this respect,@Gnomon brought in the whole idea of dialectical truth as expressed by Hegel.I have not touched upon the ideas of Hegel as I would like and do plan to read in this area because I do believe that it is extremely important.

But the point I would wish to make here is that while we regard current thinking as extremely important, and I am not actually disputing the extent of knowledge of this information age, but at the same time we have to avoid a sense of superiority. It is possible that certain aspects of truth are being lost. Here, I would say that I question some of the depth of knowledge available on the internet, believing that it glosses on surfaces and does not go to the depths and foundations of the real searches of the thinkers of many ideas.

One other point I about the historical context is the whole idea of hermeticism, as attribute to the person known as Hermes Trimegistus, which was a foundation for Western thinking, including both science and religion, as well as philosophy. Perhaps this source, as well as gnosticism and paganism, is as important in thinking about the question of relativism in comparative, historical terms, rather than the matter being seen only in terms of comparative, anthropological terms. And perhaps the whole dialogue between religion and science does not have to be construed in terms of the Judaeo- Christian tradition alone.

You have opened up a wider area of discussion than mine. I am inclined to think that people, especially in philosophy have a great amount of attachment to their views. In religious circles, people are probably more open about this because they speak in terms of their 'faith,' whereas philosophers do not use such a word often but they probably do have great investment, emotionally, in the way they have constructed their own thinking.

In terms of 'mistakes', I am often quite surprised by the way in which others, including some on this forum, jump in to point out to people that they are mistaken. It can be dismissive and defensive, and perhaps it is a cover up for lack of certainty.

I don't think that you have to go to church to have significant experiences because people can have peak experiences in all kinds of places. But, of course, we are talking about inner experiences. We could wonder whether the whole world of subjectivity and that is where relativity comes in because, ultimately, no one can claim that their experience of the 'truth' is the superior one.

I just noticed that you made an addition to the post which you wrote, about Nietzsche's idea of the eternal recurrence. You say that it is important to note that he formed his idea as an alternative perspective to the Christian perspective on life being in two worlds. I think that you probably mean heaven and hell.

This has just left me wondering what people think about the issue of life after death in the more expensive views opened up by physics. I am not saying it necessarily means that there is life after death but simply that we are no longer living in the Newtonian- Cartesian paradigm in which humanist and atheist views emerged. I am just wondering what the implications of quantum physics, possible worlds and other new ideas throws up for the question of consciousness at death.

Yes, you are quite right about Helen Keller. She was a very interesting example of someone with rare gifts and the person who sprang to my mind when I was reading your comment was Stephen Hawking. Also, I was wondering in particular about people who have been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum, because some of them have profound and rare abilities too.

It's interesting really because I think that Jung's ideas are very ambiguous allowing for differing interpretations. My own taking has been influenced by the writings of Anthony Steven's who chose to see his perspective as seeing archetypes as patterns embedded in nature. But of course this is just one way of thinking about it all and I have read a book called, 'Jung the Mystic' by Gary Lachman. Also, I have an unread book on my shelves, called, 'Jung's Psychology and Tibetan Buddhism: Western and Eastern Paths to the Heart,' by Radmila Moacanin. Perhaps I should read it shortly.

I suppose that Jung is one of the writers on the edge, in between religion and science. I do think that there is this whole area as well as those who are on the sometimes aggressive battle between the two possible but not necessarily opposed ways of viewing truth and reality.

I am aware that there are some extremely religious people (mainly Christians) and some people who take a materialist reductionist approach. So far, the whole issue of the 'mystical' has been thrown up by the debates, but not between the most extremes of belief. I have to admit that it had occurred to me that the extremes could have been part of the debate, but the whole notion of 'cultural relativism,' may have led the discussion more into the middle area and this is probably where I have been hovering. I have to admit that I have probably chosen to think away from the 'mystical' because I have done academic studies in psychology and mental health care. But I have read a lot of esoteric philosophy at times as well.

When you speak of rare traits that should not be 'choked' by the need to conform to stereotypes are you pointing to the need to embrace difference? Which specific traits are you thinking about?It would be interesting if the marginalised were celebrated for their unique potential and individuality. It makes me think of the whole 'outsider art' movement. I am sure that you are thinking of something other than the arts alone, but it sounds positive.

I was just thinking about what you were saying about the collective unconscious , and I agree that it can be regarded as mythic rather than like some mystical entity. But in a sense, it seems wierd that people often level this criticism at the idea of the collective unconscious, because all theoretical structures are models really. The idea of the collective unconscious should not be seen as some kind of supernatural category.

Surely, no one theory can capture reality completely, but this would apply to religious and scientific viewpoints too. Perhaps all pictures of truth are partial and the problem is like trying to grasp for, 'The Whole of the Moon' as in The Waterboys' song.

Yes, it is hard to get carried away on this philosophy forum. I probably say more about my personal life than many others, and after all, it is about philosophy.

It can be very addictive as well. I hear beeps on my phone in the night and sometimes get up to read comments coming through, because of course people are writing in different time zones. But, on some nights I have been awake reading comments and tired in the day. Saying that, I think that it is fantastic that we are able to communicate philosophy ideas with people from across the world. It allows for such diversity of discussion, because I am sure that we all have such different lives.

I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed.

But I was planning to do a bit more writing on the thread tomorrow and your latest post here will be a useful stimulus for me to reflect upon.

So, you have literal snakes in your life? I only have symbolic ones, and I live in an overcrowded area of South London. It is so busy in Tooting that you get pushed and shoved walking down the streets.

I am sure that our environment affects our thinking, and this goes back to the whole nature and nurture debate. I did not grow up in London though. I was in Bedford, the land of John Bunyan's 'Pilgrim's Progress', so perhaps that is how I began embarking on my own philosophy pilgrimage.

I am pleased that many people are engaging in the thread because I intended it to be a debate rather than one with me dominating it. I tired myself out writing responses to comments, but I hope to write something new in it tomorrow, providing that too many snakes do not manifest themselves in my life before then.

No, I was not thinking of one specific idea when I dreamt up this thread. I was just feeling daunted by the prospect of needing to be informed by the history of any idea that I think about.

I believe that what you are saying on the idea of the unconscious on a collective basis is consistent with Jung's own thinking on the matter.
In speaking of intuition he said that, 'Mystical experience is experiences of the archetypes.' However, there are ambiguities in his thinking, and part of this may be due to the way he divides experience into four categories: bodily sensations, rational thinking, emotions and, intuition. He believes that these are balanced different from person to person, with most people having one function which is distinctly inferior.

Moving away from Jung to the idea of intuitive knowledge, we can note that some philosophers have, such as Leibniz and Descartes have believed that we have certain ideas which are innate. So, these would override relativism.

I think that the main point you thought that it was worth me reflecting upon was the idea that, 'Every truth, in so far as it is true, is an absolute truth.' I guess that this makes sense in terms of how we all have our own perspective and each one's view at any given time is an absolute in the sense that it is the best that can be achieved. I think that reason I have always been uncertain is that I have always felt confronted by clashing truths.

I read an awful lot, which may be why that happens. Even as an adolescent, I spent loads of time in libraries, and many might have thought I was busy at my GCSE and A level studies, but I was reading all sorts of diverse topics and exposed my mind to all colliding perspectives. Also, I had a physics teacher who said that whatever else, he could say that he had looked at everything from all possible angles. I decided I wished to do that too.

Earlier today, I looked back and saw that someone fairly recently started a thread on the topic of whether there is any objective truth and I had never even logged into it. That was probably because on a subconscious level I am not convinced of any objective truth as such. That is why I raise the issue of cultural relativism. But, perhaps I should not keep looking too hard, but I do like to do my best to explore the different avenues of thought, ranging from the religious to the scientific, in order to develop the clearest thinking that I can.

I have to admit that I am struggling a bit in coming up with a response to your comment because I can see the validity of what you are saying. I can see that the idea of a collective unconscious is one which can be disputed.I don't think that the idea does in itself challenge relativism outrightly. That is because it is a source of symbolism and not necessarily a source of knowledge, but this is complicated.

The reason I am struggling with my answer is that I am aware it opens up such enormous areas of debate around the whole question of truth. The problem I see with the idea of the mystic quest is that to some extent it pushes aside philosophy and the rational search for answers, but of course myth goes into the realm of symbolism. I guess that is why many philosophers are inclined to avoid mythology and mysticism. But I am inclined to think that the more people search for solid foundations, especially in physics, the less certain everything is becoming.

So, please accept my remark as tentative and feel free to get back to me because it is an area for discussion. Also, perhaps others will join in because I am really just opening up areas for debate.

Every act in life involves some degree of risk. To say that preventing people from harm by not allowing them to exist is overloaded use of the word 'harm'. Speaking of the consent of non existent people is questionable. We could argue that by preventing them from existing we deny their capacity to make decisions, although I know what your answer is, as you argue that it is too late.

I am not saying this I have absolutely no sympathy with your beliefs about questions of bringing people into the world but the conclusions are two simple. We can find ways of transforming suffering. think it would be worth you going back to the original discussion by @Benkei because it gives a full description of the problems of the antinatalist view, and see if you can challenge that analysis.

Yes, I think that you make a very important point. The whole set of criteria: 'original, comprehensible, popular or accurate' are competitive ones and I don't think they could possibly be all achieved equally. I have to admit that I would rank accurate and comprehensible as the two top ones.

I would be tempted to say that accurate should be the most important but comprehensible is important in a sense or there is a danger of 'truth' becoming too esoteric. But, there again, perhaps that is what happens when philosophy is constructed into popular means of being written for everyday understanding. Perhaps the truth gets levelled down into being too comprehensible that the essence gets lost in the process.

And, in conceiving of ideas in this way I am not sure that 'original' is that important in the scheme of things. I am probably coming to that conclusion in my discussion thread on cultural relativism too, because I have really raised the whole question of what is truth?

The articles you linked me into about Joseph Campbell are interesting, and I am sure he has his limits but I think it is going too far to say that he is for children and 'that he is a practice rung on a practice ladder.' I am wondering which writers you would place higher up the ladder?

I think that his ideas do work most strongly in understanding personal psychology in literary narratives. However, our lives are composed of story and stories within stories so in that sense are relevant for understanding truth.

I will reply to the comment you made on truth later on, after I have replied to the one on the subject by Undercover Metaphysician. I have really raised the whole question of what is truth in my thread, as well as the debate on religion vs truth, and cultural relativism but perhaps, stripping back the surfaces, perhaps the main one is what is truth?

Perhaps what I am saying about antinatalism sounds like a sweeping statement and a bad argument. But the whole argument that life results in suffering and that this means that it would be better to have not been born at all is a bad argument. It has a lack of imaginative scope around the human response to suffering.