I could not sleep and it is 3.45 am where I am so I wish you all the best and perhaps you need to explain the categorical imperative more fully if you wish to steer the discussion back on course.

I don't think this thread was ever about the categorical imperative, so I am going to withdraw from the discussion.

It does seem that you wrote this thread with a view to initiating discussion about gay marriage rather than the categorical imperative, despite your heading. The only person who is genuinely discussing the imperative is Creative Soul, and the whole aspect of the discussion should not be addressed in respect of same sex marriage as the one social issue to focus upon.

It depends what you mean by moral or ideological? That is a whole debate beyond the basics of the categorical imperative.

Are you talking about the categorical imperative or just trying to find a basis from which to address social issues of every kind in a one size fits all approach?

I don't think that Kant made any reference to viewing the categorical imperative from a male or female point of view, although he was writing in an age in which females would have struggled to become philosophers. But even so I believe that the whole point is about universal principles based on a priori principles, even though I admit that I was slanting the imperative towards a bit more of a utilitarian one rather than the strict a priori principles.

The whole point of the categorical imperative is considering a problem from the perspective of what would happen if everyone made this choice.
Perhaps it can be applied more usefully to the political issues of our time rather than to issue the one of same sex marriage. This is because most people who are opposed to same sex marriage are not really objecting with a view to what if everyone made this choice. It is not really likely that such a number of people would choose same sex marriage to be the point where the population would be likely to die out.

However, in issues such as ones like use of resources it could be useful to consider if everyone made certain choices, in terms of thinking in terms of one's own carbon footprint. Also, the idea of the categorical imperative could be useful in terms of social distancing measures. For example, if one thinks I just want to go out and enjoy oneself with disregard of any recommend distancing, it would be useful to consider what would happen if everyone made this choice too?

Of course, the way I am interpreting the categorical imperative is from a different basis to Kant because I am looking at the imperative more in terms of utilitarian ends rather than the general deontological approach. But perhaps ethics does not have to be a clash between an emphasis on duty or ends, but can combine the two criteria.

Well, what can I say other than Jim Morrison was into him.

I am inclined to think that going by the name the person who wrote the thread is female. Perhaps she will be the one who will lead the way in the most creative transvaluation, free from the will to power of testosterone.

Obviously Hitler was a crude example of a going beyond. But of course he had many influences, one of them was theosophy, which was about about the whole idea of a master race.

I am personally inclined to think that Nietzsche's ideas work better if seen as a basis for the suffering and a poetics for finding meaning individually. Nihilism can be a pathway to despair if taken too concretely. I find his ideas helpful but I read many writers rather than just sticking to one system.

I come from more of an interest in psychology and the arts. I do think about the future and do not consider myself as having expertise in politics. But I do believe that translating any system of philosophy into political ethics is complicated and poses problems. But getting back to Nietzsche I do wonder if another possible way his ideas could be translated into practice would be as anarchism, but this is yet another complex area.

I am interested in Nietzsche but I don't think he is very popular on this site. I started a thread on his idea of eternal recurrence a couple of days ago and no one responded. Someone also started one on an aspect of Nietzsche's thought since mine but that died abruptly too. So we all lost on different threads which is existentialist in itself.

I am not that well versed in his philosophy applied to ethics but I think the best translation of his thought is into ethics is the philosophy of egoism. There is an article on the site about the philosophy of egoism by Gus Lamarch. I logged onto about 10 days ago to make a comment about so it should not be too far back.

I hope you find this because I think it could provide you with some groundwork, or maybe someone else will be able to offer you some practical or ethical attempt at the idea of the transvaluation of values.

At least the Buddha is not giving us a fixed rule. Perhaps each of us to find our own way and balance. This allows for us to experiment with the extremes.

I remember my dad, who was a strict Catholic, brought up in a school run by the Christian fathers in Ireland, coming out with a surprising comment a couple of years before he died. He said that he had 'an elastic conscience.' My mother looked a bit startled and I never got round to asking him what he meant.

But I do believe that the worst possibility is when people dictate on morality, and masturbation is private, so I do think it is something we can make personal choices about. It is one aspect of life which does not affect others directly.

Yes, of course it is true that food is one aspect which which engages in all the senses. When I went to creative writing workshops, which encouraged engagement with the senses, I saw this exploited to the extreme when a woman wrote about tasting the lasagne on someone 's mouth while kissing them.

Another issue about multiple engagement with the senses is the whole phenomena of synethesia. I do have some experience of this because I sometimes feel able to see sounds. In particular, if I close my eyes while listening to music I can see visual images. However, I think that this blending of sight and sound may be because at a certain point in development the eye and the ear develop from the same nodule. Some people have a certain amount of natural synethesia naturally but of course that can be simulated by mind altering drugs.

Perhaps the Buddhist middle way could be a useful way of thinking in between the extremes of hedonism or Kant.

I know that your post is not a particular response to my post but when I mentioned Kant's writing life I was trying to say that there are higher pleasures rather than just physical pleasure. I am in favour of masturbation but not as an end but as a means to an end, in terms of creativity. For to forbid an act is to increase desire.

I am aware of the some traditional ways of thinking about meditation which suggest that we can sublimate sexual desires into creativity and I do wonder if this is possible. One whole area of thinking about meditation is the whole tradition of thought about the kundalini lifeforce.I have read a book on this by Gopi Krishna.

The awakening of kundalini is a perilous quest, but of course many would question the whole idea of the chakra system but I certainly feel aware of my chakras, and I believe that many have a certain degree of opening of chakras awakening of kundalini or triggered through drug experimentation.

You mention about drug use, especially you refer to the drug, ecstasy. I think that this has a lot of relevance because so many of us are searching for ecstasy. But this is often to cope with the opposite state, the misery of depression. So, on one hand we may have hedonistic yearnings but this is often thwarted to the point of clinical depression. It is quite interesting that both the drug, ecstasy, and the SSRI antidepressants, which include Prozac, both work on the serotonin receptor points. It is just that Ecstasy gives it in a big wave, all at once, unlike the small steady rate of the antidepressants.

So, one question is do we need less misery or less hedonism?

I don't want to be too archaic. How would I be seen as postmodern. Perhaps it would involve art work involving torn shreds of Kant's writings. But I don't hate him. I don't think he much pleasure but perhaps his writing life was more enjoyable than masturbation.

Bertrand Russell said, 'We have acquaintance with the data of the outer senses, and in introspection of what may be called the inner sense- thoughts, feelings, desires, etc.' I think that the role of introspection is important in understanding how we engage with the senses. We are not just machine-like channels, taking in the vast sensory world. We would be overwhelmed. We take an active role in selecting meaningful experience, and this has been recognised in field of the psychology of perception.

I am suggesting the importance of mind in enabling us to be conscious creators of meaning. This is not denying the insights of neuroscientists, but I disputing the more behavioural perspective. The point which I am making is that we have choice in selecting, as minds, in selecting how to engage with the outer world.

This enables us to build an inner world and autobiographical constucts, interpreted in the form of language. What I am saying may be seen as obvious, or some may dispute it, but I think that our role as architects of our inner world is essential to being human and to our freedom to find pathways to revision our lives.

I have never discussed masturbation with a priest. The main point I was making was how I disregard puritanical views.

Thanks, you are right and i hadn't noticed that the word Five was in red, so my eyesight is not as sharp as that described in the article. I have found the missing link!

But I think that the real missing link is the 'I' of the conscious ego, interpreting sensory data.

Perhaps we are left looking for a missing link like in Darwin's theory.

I think you were trying to reply to God Must Be Atheist because he was writing about Pavlov, not me. I think you must both be talking about Maslow though, not Pavlov as I am not aware of Pavlov talking about a hierarchy of needs at all. Pavlov was more interested in classical conditioning.

I am interested in Maslow's theory though and wrote about it in the thread about human nature, so perhaps you read that. I think simply achieving all the lower needs will not necessarily result in the highest goal of self actualization or enlightenment. But probably the cravings of an unmet need can be a deterrent. But perhaps it is when we can go beyond the satisfactions of our lower needs that we can begin to search for something else and that can be a starting point for the journey.

I do believe that the use of the five senses as a whole is extremely important, which you argue, including reference to an article, which you say that you are including as a link. I think that you actually forgot to include the link.

I am not really arguing for supernatural extras as such, but do think that our whole way of philosophising cannot be reduced to the senses or the brain. Identity and ideas stem from our brain, but each of us as unique individuals develop a narrative, which is an interpretation of our sensory experiences. This narrative is part of the essence of our creativity.

I am sorry that my message is blurry but my mum is almost snatching my phone from me ,
puzzled by what I am writing .

What I am trying to say, not sure if you or others will understand, is that our senses are important for understanding our human quest It s our whole inheritence of thought which is the subject matter of the dilemmas of life at this point in time.

But is this an abstract an of identity or is it the basis of the life as we know it on a daily in its most raw form,?

I believe that the sensory experience is an important part but is limited in the face of our own experience of the experience of ego, mind as an abstract part of identity and as an multidimensional experience.

I am into understanding the senses, especially for creative writing and believe that this should be carried forward into philosophy too. But I am inclined to think that the senses are a mere baseline.

I am inclined to think that there are aspects of experience which can only be touched upon by few, philosophers or creative artists, but this is speculation. My point could be crumbled by the dagger of philosophy, but it may survive in the writings of the broken philosophy, of those whose egos have been torn asunder through the harsh lessons of those who are torn asunder by painful experiences, but hopefully this is part of the raw material for philosophy.

One question I will ask before giving up this thread is whether the life we are living is the ultimate one, or is it part of a larger picture from which to see out own mortality? Should we wonder about further lives or some larger frame of reference or should the question of any possible afterlife, in any all practical or abstract terms, be seen as part of delusion, imagination or even as an aspect of esoterica?

I think that many people view science as the supreme expert on truth, forgetting that the models in physics and other sciences are models primarily.

I do believe that the physicist Fritjof Capra is the one scientist who engages most with the issues of philosophy, especially with the boundaries between the sciences and the humanities, in 'The Turning Point'. His book' The Tao of Physics' also makes important links with the philosophy of religion.Also, I think that the ideas of Stephen Hawking are important for philosophy.

Perhaps the artistry of the philosophers can enable science to be seen as important but without relegating all other truths to the rubbish bin.

I see you like Leftover Crack. I really like them and saw them live. I recommend the new album by Strike Anywhere, 'Nightmares of the West'. I have it on CD, so I can't link it to you, but you can probably find it on You tube.

I still prefer physical music to music on my phone, and I prefer to listen to a whole album rather than tracks because I see completel albums as pieces of art, rather than just reducing them to tracks.

I think the question you ask, 'What would you do when no one is watching?'is a good one to ask to reveal to us the depths of our individual nature because it goes beyond the facade and pretence we maintain to pretend to others about being a 'good' person.

Many of the great thinkers stressed the importance of seeking beyond the material world for enlightenment, or the quest for higher truth and happiness. But, even, Buddhism stressed the importance of the middle way, rather than the extreme and the whole emphasis was on non attachment. It is possible to have few possessions but be as attached to these as a person who has more.

We also have the whole problem of how the Christian church, especially under Calvinism, preached on how people should avoid acquiring wealth in order to suppress people into a life of poverty. Keep the poor as poor, while the Church acquired wealth.

In terms of searching for enlightenment how much do we need? We need enough for education. We need to read, books or on devices. How much material comfort do we need? We can ask whether the philosophers of today would be best thinking out in a life in the wilderness or in a flat, surrounded by shelves full of books, a computer and a bed to sleep in at night?

I agree with you that many people avoid thinking and that the way of the hero or heroine is for the few. I am not sure that this would change much even if people receive the best possible education. The reason for that is because it is easier and safer to follow the leaders.

Thinking and finding a journey outside the common pathways is perilous and can be lonely. It can also be hard work.Perhaps the people who choose to think and question are those who do not fit in or who become dissatisfied with the status quo.

It is as if many people do not choose to climb to the top of Maslow's top of the pyramid of the hierarchy of needs, to strive towards the need for self actualization. In fact, I found that in my nurse training Maslow's model, is often just used as a model for the basic care needs, with no mention of self actualization at all. This is different from Maslow's original picture because in 'Towards a Psychology of Being'.

He emphasizes the role of peak experiences as being a possibility, but as one which occurs once the lower needs are satisfied primarily. But I do not think it has to be straightforward. For example, a person may follow artistic needs as a response to lack of love. But of course his model does make sense in the respect that if one was homeless or hungry, such factors would make creative work, not impossible, but difficult.

But in response to your question about our human nature, we could say that part of our nature is about the basic physical and social needs. It may be suffering in the truest existential sense that may cause people to wake up, so I wonder if the antinatalists think about it. Suffering was the starting point for Buddha, and both Guirjieff, and Colin Wilson inspired by Guirjieff, spoke of how people get to the point of' choosing to 'wake up' from robot consciousness. But part of our nature is to stay as robots.

I do agree, and I think that each of us has a masculine and feminine side, but primarily I am coming from a Jungian perspective and I am bisexual.
,

Yes, I am glad that you celebrate diversity in all its forms. We must uphold gender dysphoria, intersex, misplaced bodies and all the people who do not fit into the binary of gender.

[reply="Book273;472855"
I did not realise that the chief medical officer said that it is fine to have sex during the pandemic, as long as you wear a mask. No wonder the virus is spreading. But what about social distancing and handwashing? It seems rather absurd. I presume that she meant that it is fine with members of your household or social bubble, not chance encounters with strangers?

I still think that masturbation is the best option for many at this point in time. At the moment, it is one of the few liberties we have left.

Yes, Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence is interesting and I might start a thread on that in the next few days.

Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies. And that would incur more suffering. So I don't know what the antinatalists would make of my wish to be reborn into the world. Of course, the Hindus and Buddhists do speak of the aim of transcending the earthly plane, but I don't feel ready for that, not just yet....

I don't think that you are correct to say that there is a clear distinction between the idea between the Western idea of what goes comes around in Western thought and the idea of karma. The Western idea is based primarily on the Biblical notion of reaping what you sow. This can be connected to the belief in reincarnation held within the esoteric tradition of Christianity, which has been repressed, but still influential nevertheless.

As far as the idea of reincarnation itself is concerned this was particularly apparent in Hinduism. But it has been developed more strongly in the theosophical tradition. Karma is said to carry from life to life but also just as much to the learning curve in this life too. It is possible to be on a life of accelerated learning, especially in the lifetimes which are the hardest ones involving the most suffering. This can result in what John Lennon described as 'Instant Karma.'

Personally, I find it easier to believe in karma than reincarnation, because I can watch it occur. I think I must have a heavy karmic debt because I sometimes encounter all kinds of misfortunes, but they do often feel like lessons the universe, or some higher power, is giving me. Of course, it may all be my imagination.

I would like to believe in reincarnation too. At times I do and at other times I don't. Having one life and one body is limiting.

Yes, it is interesting to explore the philosophy of trying. You question whether you have mixed the concepts of intentions and trying. I would say that both of the two have certain ambiguities. If anything the word trying can be seen as weaker, as a defence for making an effort despite failing.

You speak of intentions in the role of a legal case of crime. I think here it is being used as a way of viewing the person's internal motives. In other words, an act is being viewed with reference to the inner world of the criminal rather than just from an external reference point. For example, if a person killed another in defending another it would be seen differently than if the killing was done with malicious intent.

But in terms of the philosophy of trying it may be all about willpower. We all try to do things and do not manage them. I would like to keep my bedroom tidy. I try for a while after each of my various moves and succeed for a while, and then it deteriorates into chaos gradually. I will try again in my new accommodation but will I succeed? Perhaps it is a matter of discipline in the face of stress and adversity.

Willpower and discipline must be a major part of intention to become successful rather than as an aspect of trying. Let us think of the example of the person with an alcohol problem. If the person has acknowledged that they have a problem they may think I will try to stop drinking heavily but will this be enough? Will they keep trying and keep failing. Of course, they may end up seeking professional help. But with or without professional help it is still possible to try, but to fail. The critical point here where intention might come into the picture is where the person may get to the point where they realise clearly that their life has hit rock bottom and something needs to change. This might involve clear strategies for change. Of course, it would not mean there would be no failings whatsoever, but rather than a mere 'trying' there would be plans to execute which could be maintained with a disciplined approach.

I hope that my answer is of some use to you in thinking about the nature of trying and intentions.

Your article is interesting, but I think karma is an idea which makes sense to many intuitively, while many dismiss it because it is hard to verify.

It is linked to consciousness as you observe and to the aspect of identity which we can trace through life experiences as you express in your statement that, 'The only thing connecting future and past conscious states to your feeling of '"you"" is that those states are also conscious of your past memories and imagination of the future.' This captures the seat of subjective consciousness experiences well. It is this aspect of self which is able to think about the possibility
of karma.

However, one aspect which you discuss is a fairly contentious area by those who believe in karma. That is whether karma is a natural law of justice. You say, 'you make a choice and later the universe alters your fate in order to either reward you or to punish you.' The question is it really about reward and punishment as such? It can be argued that karma is simply cause and effect, as expressed in the principle of you reap what you sow.

Perhaps one limitations for us is that we have developed such ideas from esoteric traditions and cannot read those in the original languages they were written. Much of the thinking on Karma was based on Hindu thought and of course that emerged in a certain historical context. The idea of reaping what you sow was part of Christianity but of course I am talking mainly of the esoteric tradition of Christianity. Generally, the idea of karma is part of esoteric thinking and it is in recent years that more of this has reached popular thought through the new age movement.

In your discussion of the justice of karma you do point to the way in which it is about balancing. What is interesting is that you say that, 'We are all judge, jury and executioner of all existence.' This does point to the way in which the person perhaps brings about the moral aspect of judgement through personal beliefs about right and wrong. So it is perhaps the higher self which administers the karma in accordance with deep seated ideas of punishment and reward.

You asked me about the law of attraction as expressed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and many other authors. The basic idea is that our deepest desires shape the manifestation of experience in our lives. The way in which I think that this relates to the way you describe karma is that it is our deepest consciousness which determines consequences in daily life. I think the essential underlying aspect shared by the two systems of thought is the idea that manifest experiences arebeyond the superficial wishes and goals of ego consciousness.

I do agree with your point that education, especially one that involves education is extremely important for the development of the potential human nature. This is because, as you say, 'Human beings are very pliable depending on their childhood.' This keys into the nurture aspect and I am sure that people are far better equipped to bring forth the positive side of potential if they receive the best education possible.

However, even then, I do think that individuals vary so much and there is a 'herd instinct,' which Nietzsche described. You say that people can become, 'Doctors or soldiers, depending on their childhood,' Of course, the doctors and the soldiers have their blindspots too.

I think that you genuinely believe that the solution to suffering is to stop procreation. I can see a certain point to what you are saying in the sense that in times of extreme suffering we can wish that we had not been born at all. However, I think your whole antinatalist stance is far too simplistic.

I am not one to say that suffering is necessarily a good thing. I would much rather a life with as little suffering as possible. It would be much easier. I also have known people who have committed suicide when they were in a state of deep crisis. But perhaps that is panic when people decide to end their lives. Deep down, I think that even in the worst circumstances there are potential creative pathways.

I thought that the Madfool's answer about the Buddhist understanding of suffering may have given you a different angle, as a means to see possible more creative ways of understanding suffering than your antinatalist one. Of course, I see that you point out that it is not about the more dramatic answer of nuclear annihilation. But at the same time your approach is a dead end, lacking any creativity.

At the end of the day whether to procreate or not is a personal decision. Each person comes from their own perspective on what kind of life they can provide for any children. I have come across people who come from the opposite viewpoint as you, who try to say we should have a duty to procreate. I object to them for preaching. But, really, you are preaching too.

Getting back to the Covid_19 situation, in some ways we are being prevented from going out and procreating in the usual way by all the lockdowns and social distancing. At the same time, I have friends who have brought children into the world since the pandemic. I do wonder about the future of these children in the post Covid_19 world, but I am just hoping that on a long term basis some positive reconstructions of living will be made. I think that your energy would be better addressed to the positive changes which could be made in creating positive changes in the real world to reduce suffering, but, of course, I don't want to become a preacher.

Your reply is worrying!

Definitely when people speak of the human brain as the most 'complex thing in the universe' they are committing the great sin of anthropomorphic superiority. It is all from our limited human understanding of the whole complexity of the universe and beyond.