I can relate to what you are saying because one of my earliest memories is of being in a cot and a sensation of 'coming around again,' and this felt more than just waking up from being asleep in the usual sense.

Also, my grandfather died 6 weeks before I was born and I was often compared to him. When I was about 12 years old I really began wondering if I had been him in a previous life because I was into a fairly obscure author of school boy stories, which was not of my own generation. When I was talking of one of these books I wanted to read, my mother said that the strange thing was she was sure that the title had been one of the books which she had thrown away in the bookcase of books belongings to my grandfather.

I never mentioned my contemplation of reincarnation to anyone at the time because I was in a Catholic family and school, with set views, mainly of resurrection at the end of the world. I would have been told off for thinking nonsense, and it is likely that readers of this site may accuse me of talking nonsense too.

I agree with your view of the artist as being one of enabling the audience to be able to access certain experiences. I think most great novelists and music artists do provide gateways into alternate realities and it is their perception which is central to their greatness.

I do agree with your description of Huxley's understanding the brain as expressed in The Doors of Perception, but I think that his his understanding of the mescalin induced visions induced visions do allow for an understanding of altered states of consciousness. But perhaps I am twisting his argument.

I will say that my own bit of psychedelic experimentation, at a warehouse rave, certainly led me to question the mind and body question. I had the experience of sensing that I could walk through other people on the dancefloor. Also, I had the experience of looking at myself in a mirror and being able to see all my surroundings except myself, as if I had become invisible. I concluded that I could not see myself because I had left my body.

Of course, my experience might be regarded as a hallucinationary delusion. I had read Huxley's book and thought about it in relation to his views but perhaps I am twisting his argument to explain my own psychedelic experience.

I am not disagreeing with your points of viewing the end of individual consciousness at death, and I can take on board the idea that the person lives on to some extent in the effects their lives have upon other people. I am just interested to know why you think that consciousness ceases completely at death. Is this based on the premise that mind is totally dependent on the brain?

I think that many people do take this view and it may well be correct. However, this is not the only way of seeing consciousness, and I am thinking about the perspective of Henri Bergson and Aldous Huxley who believed that rather than the brain generating consciousness, it is a reducing valve. This is consistent with William Blake's view that if the 'doors of perception were cleansed', we would see 'all things as infinite.'

When I read your post I focused upon my need to define my understanding of consciousness.

However, looking at it again, you say that
'when you die, your component parts are appropriated to something else's self organisation.' I wonder what this would mean: cosmic recycling?

Yes, I see what you mean about a definition of consciousness. For the purposes of my present discussion the understanding of consciousness which I will adopt is: a meaningful sense of knowiedge, based primarily but not exclusively, on personal experience.

I think that what you are saying is true on some level but even the fabric of thinking underlying science is tenuous. However,I am sure that the scientific thinkers on this site claim to have the last and final say upon truth, as the religious believers had the ultimate words, many centuries ago.

Are you saying that life and death are given to us within cycles of learning? I keep an open mind to this possibility, but with an awareness that there is a lack scientific credibility to back up this view,
although it may be the case that scientists cannot grasp and put such a perspective under a microscope or within the structure of experiment. In other words, I would love to believe thhat you are suggesting is true, but there is a danger in accepting the possibility because it appeals to many of us.

I think that the Coronavirus restrictions are raising major areas of philosophical debate although in the media they are not touched upon in that exact way.

It is a complex lifeboat ethics situation, with questions about who should be saved. In placing decisions about the lockdowns, governments have been favouring the vulnerable and older people, because the statistics show that only a minimal amount of younger people have died from the virus.

Many people are aware of this slant and this is causing a backlash. Aside from protests, in England the majority of England are now thrown into tier 2, which involves many restrictions, but not as tight as lockdown. Today, lockdown is over and what I have seen in London is that people are seizing all opportunities for freedom after lockdown. I think it is likely that this loosening will probably result in tier 3 restrictions for London within a week.

The point I am trying to make is that political leaders have been making lifeboat ethical decisions in terms of the elderly and vulnerable, 9without this being said outrightly. But the other side of this is that other parts of the population are being thrown into poverty. This is acknowledged in the news but almost as an afterthought. In England it is described in the rhetoric of the need for the NHS to avoid being overwhelmed. But the true lack of consensus about priorities is not being addressed by leaders in open debate.

Of course the deaths cannot be ignored but perhaps it would be more helpful if, rather than coercion by endless rules, which cause anger, people were encouraged to think in terms of risks and responsibilities. In the end, vaccinations may be offered and some might refuse. In this way, the whole area of thinking may have to be reframed to allow for individual choice and informed risk assessment rather than all encompassing rules and regulations.

You suggest that at some point we wake up. This is not an established, so perhaps you could expand your point of view in a bit further detail.

Yes, I am undecided about the whole possibility of life after death, but think about it a lot. It is such a difficult question, but I think it one worthy for the philosophers forum, and perhaps more importantly than mathematical puzzles, but not necessarily easier.

[reply="Pop;d9774"
This debate could be seen as going back to the position of whether existence precedes essence l, as stressed by Sartre. It is hard to know whether existence precedes essence, body before mind. I think this is relevant to your debate, and would say that perspective may be of importance.

Does I appear to my mind or my mind to my body. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective but it also raises questions about the whole mind and body debate. Which is the most important?

] I am glad that you are joining into the debate. I am inclined to think that the dissolution of the ego is central to the discussion but I do not think that this rules out the possibility of higher transcendental experiences. They may not last forever, but they may be of some significance, in considering our limited human identities in the vast scheme of possibilities, beyond the death of the individual ego.

Perhaps you could tell me more about parallel universes as a possibility beyond the mortality of the physical body.

Your discussion of being brain dead is interesting. Although, of course, this is the perspective of those who declare the person to be brain dead.

Can we exist without a brain. I am inclined to think we need one, but I am a bit open minded in consider other possibilities.

You say that we are not conscious after death. I am unsure if you are meaning to say that we cease to exist at all. It may seem obvious that we do not exist at all if not conscious but I make no ultimate presumptions. When I was a teenager I came across a Christian writer, J Phillips, suggesting that we exist as memories in God's mind after death. This was the first time in which I experienced the idea that life, as we know it, may end after earthly experiences and I was downhearted.

Yes, sometimes it is hard to pay attention to the body as a being of consciousness in the material world. I have to admit that I sometimes become disheveled and forget to shave when I am busy wrangling with philosophical questions. But perhaps we might as well just grow long ,
scraggly beards and moustaches because we don't have full faces any longer, now that we wear masks in all social situations.

I like your writing and would like to believe that what you are saying is true. I do believe in the importance of waking up, whether in another life or this one.

I am not sure about the idea that a life beyond this one would entail blackness. I have known too many black hole states and some strange dimensions. If my consciousness does survive death I hope to encounter colours and beyond the spectrum and multidimensory experiences in the oceanic depths, unchartered by the most of the living peoples.

I hope that you get back to me if you die before me. I hope that I can manage to log into the site if I am up to it.Despite wondering if I would have been happier if I had been taller and better looking, I am still wondering if I will cope, or will struggle with missing my body if I survive beyond physical death.

I am concerned about the history of humanity and where we are going. I agree that ideologies are a problem in the sense that they are ideas involving political agendas, reinforced by the mass media. You say that you don't think that, "human nature is a fundamental part of philosophy' and I do think that philosophy is beginning to abandon some of the basic questions about human living.

Personally, in my own studies and personal life I have been interested in ethics, including Kant originally, which was why I replied to your thread on the categorical imperative. However, I do believe that ethics based on intention rather than consequences is limited.

I have read one book which has influenced my thinking in particular, called, Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, by Erich Neumann. The copy I have was published in 1990, and I believe the original edition was 1949, but it is an accepted classic discussion about ethics, influenced by the ideas of Carl Jung.

In the foreword to this book, James Yandell offers a definition of human nature which includes, 'in potential form, capacities for such virtues as loving generosity, compassion, altruism, courage, patience and wisdom. It also includes potentials for other qualities, like callous selfishness, greed, envy, backwardness, cruelty, pettiness, destructive violence, and wilful unconsciousness.'

Neumann argues that the problem with traditional ethics is that there was an emphasis on perfection and this could not be achieved, meaning that people failed. Rather than people being given or trying to achieve a certain set of ideals the better option is for people individually to gain wholeness.

He argues that,'The mortal peril which confronts modern man is that he may be collectivised by the pressure of the forces of the unconscious,' and that, 'growth through wholeness necessarily involves a creative relationship between the dark instincts of man's nature and the light side represented by the consciousness mind.' So, the whole emphasis is about greater self awareness of their 'good' and 'bad' tendencies rather than be driven by them on an unconscious level.

The whole perspective of Neumann is so different from Kant in the sense that it is about understanding of our basic nature, rather than the importance of 'duty' as part of the moral life. But, the level of the quest is about self knowledge and Neumann stresses that it has, 'nothing in common with any megalomaniac condition of being "beyond good and evil"'.

I do not know if the ideas of Neumann which I have tried to give in summary will offer any useful way for considering the whole issue of human nature and the future of humanity and hope that you do not see the perspective itself as a dangerous ideology. I certainly believe that the best hope for us is increased self knowledge and this will determine our actions individually but in doing so, this can have an influence on the collective level too.

Of course, what I have been saying is that we need to understand our own nature on an individual level. This is a psychological journey and we are all unique and it is a picture which does involve a view of the person, involving unconscious as well as a conscious ego. So, it is open to philosophical debate.

I do not believe in any one simplistic definition of human nature but incorporated ideas from psychoanalysis and other psychological traditions and see the whole question as being a multidisciplinary exploration. I do appreciate the ideas of Charles Darwin, as mentioned by yourself.

But the point I was making in my last point to you is that we have been viewing human nature based on past history, but this history is still not over an
we can say that a final analysis involves the fate we make by our choices, especially in this age of technological sophistication. And, here, I will offer a quotation for reflecting upon,

'Self-made gods with only the laws of physics to keep us company, we are accountable to no one.
We are consequently wreaking havoc on our fellow animals and on the surrounding ecosystem, seeking little more than our comfort and amusement, yet never finding satisfaction.
Is there anything more dangerous and irresponsible gods who don't know what they want?'
Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens:A Brief History of Mankind (2011)

I think that the main reason why so many people are starting to become isolated is that there are so many people in certain areas, that is easy for certain individuals to get ignored. A lot of people hold on to their established networks. It is not necessarily the case that they are too busy but perhaps do not need to reach out to increase their social support circles.

Of course for those who do wish to open up to others there are risks and questions of who to trust. Also, as we are beginning to communicate more on our digital devices we are beginning to interact less in the physical world. In that sense, we can be in danger of isolating ourselves.

In the UK, the age people move out of the family home varies a lot. Many are choosing to remain at home longer because of the difficulty of finding affordable accommodation. But this can be awkward if the houses are not big. As the population gets bigger living conditions are starting to get more overcrowded, to the point where it affects quality of life in a detrimental way.

Without going back to the beginning of the question of human nature, because it has been the whole thread discussion, I would say that the whole way we live is part of way of defining human beings. There are underlying issues, especially the nature and nurture one. However, the possible adaptations we make in the face of our circumstances and possible freedoms are also one way of seeing human nature. In other words, the issue is not just about looking at the past, but about us our nature in present existentialist terms and future potential.

I think that part of the problem is that people do not really live in actual communities in all parts of the world, especially England. It also depends how people define communities. Is it the people in one's immediate locality, family groups, religious communities, education or work communities.

I would say locally is not necessarily a part of community. One does not know one's neighbours. For example, I moved into a shared house of 7 people about 2 months ago and still only know 3 of the other tenants by name. Mind you, this is related to the fact that I am the only person in the house who is from England and 4 of the people can barely speak any English at all.

What I would say is that it is possible to not belong to any community at all. Most people have some connections with others but it is variable.
But in some cities people are increasingly becoming numbers and isolated.

I do agree here that the whole question of finding value when confronting a challenge or in the face of adversity. And, yes, does one give up, or fantasise about happier prospects. I think that this is the point from which Nietzsche begins from nihilism and suffering to find personal meaning. This is a way of seeing a transvaluation rather than necessarily a literal creation of a whole system of social ethics.

Unfortunately, the country I live in is failing to provide the basics for many. Perhaps, in the past the majority were in relative comfort but not now, as there are many people who are queuing at food banks. The Covid_19 situation has been a major factor but it was beginning already.

Life as we know it is turning upside down but it may involve relearning the basics and essence of human nature, for worse, or preferably, for better.

What you describe about community in your society is a sharp contrast to the one I am familiar with in England where there is a whole culture of materialistic individualism. Of course there are exceptions and bonds between friends but, generally, the principle of sharing is not applied. Life is tough and fierce for many, with a whole emphasis on performance and outward goals, targets and markers of success.

I am afraid that I do not understand the logic of what you are saying. The only posts I have seen by you were in the thread on Kant's moral view, so it would be helpful if you could say briefly but a bit more clearly your point of view. I do not see how 'morals can be bent according to culture'. Surely, it is about circumstances, and you have not stated your basis for believing that we are 'ethical creatures.'

I was a little confused about the full basis of your argument . Can you explain in what way you believe that destructive elements of human nature will be righted. Is it in an evolutionary perspective?

I think that what you are saying is very important because duration of suffering is particularly important. But I would say it applies to psychological suffering as much as physical torture.

But the whole issue is we can put up with a certain amount of suffering but we have our limits, and as you say the effects of experience can linger on a long term basis.Beyond a certain point, we begin to get ill with stress, depression and the ego can even collapse, leading to psychosis.

As you say, it is not a completely new and unchartered territory but because seems to be obvious if one thinks about it does not mean that it should be overlooked. The people who experienced torture physically and psychologically need to be given support in a most sensitive way in order for them to recover as fully as possible. If they are treated negatively, especially within the psychiatric system, without appreciation of what they have been through they may experience exacerbations of the original cycle of trauma.

I do not see why you believe that we need to find a new specific moral law. We have had systems of rules in the past ranging from the Ten Commandments, the golden rule of Christianity and Kant's categorical imperative.

The difficulty with laws including the legal ones is that principles exist, but the application is so much more complicated. If there was a specific formula for morals do you not think that it would have been discovered by now? But it would be interesting if someone could propose a new way of thinking about morality entirely.

But without a new moral law being discovered this does not mean that ethics is not an area for exploration. Perhaps it is more about fine tuning previous thinking with specific focus on the dilemmas of our times.

Reading through your comments made earlier today it seems that you are concerned about the destructive potential of human nature.

There are many aspects of the whole debate on human nature captured in the many comments made already but what I would say to you is that I have found the psychological perspectives of Freud and Jung useful for considering human destruction potential.

Freud speaks of an inherent conflict between the life and death instincts. Jung points to the idea of repressed aspects of the personality, which can give rise to destruction potential, which he calls the shadow. But I won't say anymore here because I created one thread on Freud and one on the shadow a few weeks ago. If you are interested you would find these by scrolling back a few weeks ago.

I read your posts and I know that you come from the Phillipines, which I am sure is very different from England. I have known work colleagues from the Phillipines.

Regarding poverty, it is true that on the whole the Phillipines is a poorer country. The main difference is that England is a very consumer orientated society, although I think that is beginning to break down.

In one of your posts you suggest that there are 4 basic needs: 'eat, sleep,sex and drink'. I find this a rather simplistic picture of human nature. I am not saying that this is not the case at all though, as I see that many appear to be driven by these goals, even in England.

It may come down to basic sets of values and aspirations. Of the those raised in poverty may in some cases be told that these are the important aspirations. But you leave out the whole aspect of relationships with others which I would think is treated as more important than material goals, particularly in some more poverty stricken societies. Perhaps?

In some respects I agree with you but I have seen the subcultural aspects of life. I have spent time in Camden, mixed with the downtrodden and walked around London in the middle of the night, so perhaps I have seen too much...

Yes, I am still thinking about your response and how it compares to my experience. It probably depends on where one lives in the world and also the social groups one mixes in.

Living and working in London, I have not lived a particularly sheltered life and it will be interesting if others on the forum read this, because our social contexts affect our lens of perception.

So, the latest question to add to the human nature debate is whether readers of the forum have been witness to the darker side of human nature.

Perhaps I come from a different world to you because I have most certainly seen the darker side of 'normal'. And I really don't whether your view is the more common experience and whether or not mine is the deviant one?

There are so many varieties of experiences of being alone. In the first you describe most people would ignore the red light as no one is likely to be affected. In the second one it is unlikely that the theft will affect anyone badly. The last one of being alone in some social distancing and taking up new hobbies and relaxation is the way many people have coped in positive ways this year.

So, you were really supposing a better side of human nature than the one conjured up by your words. My imagination comes up with far different ones: the people who drink alcohol and take drugs secretly, work hard when the boss is watching but slack off when unsupervised and those who have secret sexual affairs, and endless other possibilities. Perhaps I have a grim picture.


But I have seen so many aspects of the darker side of human nature....

I think we need elegant writing in the future of philosophy.

I have read a bit of John Dewey and Henri Bergson. I downloaded Bergson's Creative Evolution onto my kindle and started reading it but now the book won't open.

Other writers I find to be great writers apart from the existentialist writers are Gregory Bateson for his 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind', Fritjof Capra and Ken Wilber. I could name many others but I might end up sounding like a Wikipedia bibliography list.

But I am in favour of philosophy as a discipline for self examination rather than pure objectivity of the scientific approach. This is captured in Ken Wilber's understanding, stemming from the idea of the witness,
'If I rest as the Witness, the formless I-I, it becomes obvious that, right now, I am not in my body, therefore I am not my body. I am the pure witness in which my body is now arising.'

Also, believing in the importance of philosophy as art I think that we need more philosophy novels to be written.

I think it is the gist of his philosophy. I have read La Nausea. I plan to read Being and Nothingness at some stage, but have not managed it yet.

One quote I love is,
'People who live in society have learned to see themselves in mirrors as they appear to friends. Is that why my flesh is naked?
You might say- yes you might say, nature without humanity...Things are very bad: I have it, the filth, the Nausea.'