I think that the couple of points you make are important as they speak about the human condition in a broad sense. Also, you don't make any generalisations about certain groups, which can be dangerous, but simply frame the individual within a group context.

I am reading Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil at the moment and saw on this thread that you speak of how he opposed nihilism on one level. However, he actually sees it as a basis for creating new values. I can see that this aspect of his viewpoint is missed by many readers but is central to his entire picture of 'the transvaluation of values.'

Nietzsche's goes on to speak of the 'painfulest recollection on what wretched obstacles promising developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to pieces, broken down...'
So, he depicts the way in which systems of philosophy often crumble in the face of difficult circumstances but, nevertheless, it is from the chaos of collapse itself that new starting points can be built. I think that the paradox of this is extremely important.

I have only read a couple of Nietzsche's books, so I have a limited knowledge. I was tempted to begin a thread on his book, Beyond Good and Evil, but decided against it because the reply comments may be a bombardment of misunderstandings of his whole perspective. There is so much distortion of his philosophy and as a result I chose to initiate discussion with you or other people beginning with your remark about his complex understanding of nihilism.

I think that you are suggesting that identity is just a part of the picture and we have to see ourselves as like mere cells in this process. I am not sure that this is different from the Eastern mystical approach.

That is interesting. In saying that the ego is limited I am probably thinking of Eastern perspective on consciousness as well.

As I am influenced in the healing journey with aspects of the subconscious, influenced by Jung and psychoanalysis, I probably have reorganised my own ego a fair amount anyway.

But I do like the your idea of the reorganisation of the ego as infinite.

I am sure that the whole way in which I am influenced by Jung permeates my thinking and probably even influenced the way in which I wrote the start of this thread. I do regard Jung is my important mentor and even though I come to philosophy in search of truth I am concerned about healing. I think that both are of supreme importance.

I am interested in spirituality in the sense in which your Nietzsche's quote says, a 'consuming fire'. I also love his writings, especially Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I think his writing is spiritual in the truest sense, separated from the dogmatic framework of conventional religious frameworks.

I think it works well. There is so much limitation through identifying with the ego. The whole idea of identity of consciousness can encompass all the levels of being, and it does not have to include or exclude clear boundaries of the conscious, subconscious or unconscious.

I can certainly think of my own identity in terms of consciousness.

Many writers have got themselves in a deep mess by assigning characteristics to a particular race, gender or group of people. Even though I see a lot of strengths in Jung's writings, his enormous weakness, or shadow was the way he made generalisations about racial groups, in particular about the Jewish and German nation, and at a critical time in history.

Certainly, any use of the term human nature needs to go beyond stereotypes. If the term is used it is about understanding the basics of the human condition and nothing more.

You suggest that the main point is to survive and reproduce. I am not denying the importance of future generations but I think we may need to adapt not just in the future but now, in order to survive in the gateway of the future.

Many are suffering now, not just in a remote future, from poverty, unemployment, depression and suicidal ideas . Human nature in the sense of the limits of human potential is critical right now.

Of course, many might argue that there have been critical periods in history and the majority survive, but surely that is simply a means of negating the critical factors of our own time.

The role of evidence for proving the basis of ideas is critical but also precarious. So much of current scientific thinking hinges upon it. In some cases there can almost be a mystification of evidence claims through a bombardment of baffling statistics, graphs and other aspects of quantitative evidence.

In saying that it is critical I am saying that we need reasons to believe any viewpoint. One of the reasons we believe in the hard sciences and reject some of the ideas in social science is that great bodies of experiments have been built up to prove the ideas. Of course, the analysis of data is crucial and it can be possible to refute the ideas by this method rather than based on arguments alone.

However, it is precarious in the sense that bias comes into the picture. It is well known that there is a participant observer bias. But there are probably subtle biases which are very strong too, such as the wishes of those who undertake the research. For example, the effects of certain medications are sponsored by the pharmaceutical company which manufature the drugs.This was suggested by James Davies(2013) in his book 'Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good.' it is possible that there is more than just accidental bias but that it can be 'deliberate. It is possible to create a body of evidence to support views.

In regard to my third suggestion of mystifying evidence obviously this has its limitations because there will be people who can see beyond this. But at the same time it is possible to build up an argument by just pointing to what appears to be a solid body of research. I probably will not be popular for saying this, but I have even seen people on this site claiming a view by just providing a link to an article or video without giving any detail of the validity of the evidence provided. To just provide evidence in this way is lazy and meaningless. Mere reference to research without any analysis of it is like undigested food.

But, that aside where does philosophy stand, hopping between opinion and solid evidence. If there is no evidence perhaps it is clever opinions. I am sure this can even be true of legal cases too, because it is possible to fuzz over truth by clever use of words. I would say that the best option is to look at all the facets of information we have in the most careful way, to establish the most enlightened picture possible, until a better one emerges.

But what I am saying lacks any evidence and can be seen as fuzzy play of thoughts and words, so perhaps it can be superseded by a more objective answer in the next person who makes a comment.

You are raising a good question. To what extent should we be trying to change our nature? Of course we do try and change our nature to some extent by medication: antidepressants, antipsychotics, hormone replacement, and many other chemicals.

Of course the other possibility is bioengineering. The ideas of the transhumanist writers, such as Ruth Chadwick are interesting in this respect.

Right now, I would like some chemicals to improve my functioning because we need to be smart and tough to survive these times. 2020 is worse than the rough tumbles in the playground and it is a struggle, but perhaps we will evolve and change through the rough times naturally.

I like your little sketch of the various positions of philosophy. I hope that other people see it, so it might be helpful for you to squeeze it into another thread at some point, because you may capture a wider audience than those who have read this particular thread.

I find the whole area of philosophical anthropology fascinating and I do hope to read more, although I already spend so much time reading. I would encourage you to contribute this perspective as it has been sadly lacking in many areas of recent debate and I am sure it could be extremely valuable.

I am afraid that I am not a biologist so cannot really explain how instincts and drives work. Even Freud had a conflict about whether instincts and drives are different. And, as one writer commenting on the thread I started on Freud, his whole theory of sexuality was a bit limited by him not having the knowledge about hormones which we have acquired.

I think that from a the standpoint of philosophy it is important for us to become as knowledgeable as possible about recent scientific studies. However, I do not think philosophy should be just demoted as an unnecessary body part to thought, like an appendix which can be removed.

Anyway, I have never seen any comments by you on this website so far, so my guess is that you are new, so I hope that you find interesting discussions and of course you can initiate ones of your own.

I definitely think that too much generalisations about 'human nature' are not particularly helpful. There are many differences between individuals. When I argue that the concept of human nature is still important I am looking more at basic model structure, like the instinctual drives and, dare I say it, basic archetypes, which I am sure that many hard materialists would dismiss as fantasies. But even the materialist have their fantasies, though they may think them to be unreal.

I most certainly agree with you that a static philosophy would be unhelpful for 'changing times' as you say. Perhaps the art is to be able to blend the truths of past ages with contemporary knowledge and insight. Hopefully we do not have to wait until the philosophers are dead to buried to be able to acknowledge their value.

I am glad that you can see that we are probably a bit different from our earliest ancestors. But of course, it is hard to know how much because as you point out evolution is a slow process.

The question is how will we evolve in the future?
I have read that many children being born now do not have their original set of wisdom teeth and have an extra artery in the arm. I am not sure how much difference that will make. But I have also read, but not sure of the evidence, that children born now have more junk DNA activated. That may make some difference as some scientists have suggested that what was thought to be junk DNA may contain content for the development of psychological and emotional life.

I think you were probably replying to what I wrote on the thread on Jung's shadow.

I do agree that Jung does not write much based on his personal experience, except in his autobiography, Memories, Dreams and Reflections. I think that his rather detached style of writing was the fashion of the time and I would prefer the role of witness to be included.

However, I am sure that some people have written from the witness stance in response to his writings, or we can do it ourselves. Anyway, I am not sure it would give more credibility to his argument because hard, quantitative evidence is the preferred trend in psychology today.

I don't know if you were replying to what I said or someone else's comment on this thread because you did not address anyone. I don't think I or the other people writing are actually saying that human nature is unalterable. If you were going by the last comment I made I was merely addressing this part of the debate as expressed by Pinprick's comment about the nature vs nurture debate. If you look at the thread discussion in full you will see that it is looking at the whole question about whether the use of the term human nature is helpful.

Thanks for giving me the details because it sounds interesting.

What you have explained is different to what I thought you meant, but nevertheless my supposition of what you meant lead to a thread in itself. The subject of human nature was due for discussion and what you are saying now adds to the debate.

I thought that you were coming from the point of view of thinking that human nature is an unnecessary construct whereas you think it is immutable, but think that the role of nurture is the main issue. I can see where you are coming from because we are definitely not isolated cells of consciousness. Most of the psychologists do think that the socialisation process of supreme importance. Of course, we could say that genetic factors play a role too.

I think that the nature vs nurture debate is a very important aspect of the debate about human nature, but the topic has many facets because it is central to who we are.

I do have a question about the immutabilty, whether human nature is nature or nurture. If it is part biological or shaped by the environment is it not the case that we are different from people from earliest times. I am not saying that they were less evolved because it may be the case that they were sensitive in ways beyond our capabilities but were they the same or different from us? I suppose I am just wondering about the core constructs of what it means to be a human being and whether this is distinct from the culture in which the person belongs.

As I have just said to Wayfarer I am in favour of a holistic model, or systems view of life.

However, I still believe that the idea of human nature is useful even in the light of scientific developments. I think it is easy for philosophy to get carried away with the scientific discoveries, especially quantum physics, and almost get blinded by the light to the point of missing the shadows. I don't think we can be expected to accept scientific truth as a replacement for the whole concept of human nature, because to do so would be to dismiss the basics of philosophy going back to the ancient thinkers.

I am completely in agreement with a holistic picture of human nature of life personally, and in the reply I was just writing I suggested Maslow as being a useful model, but we could also point to the whole systems point of view, such as that put forward by the physicist Fritjof Capra.

I am not a hard materialist and an obvious example of one would be the behaviourist psychologist B F Skinner.

I am particularly very interested in both Freud and Jung. I am interested in the instinctual drives described by Freud, particularly the life and death instincts. I am not sure that the Oedipus complex is exactly true but I think it is a partial description of deeper archetypal truths. I accept the idea of the collective unconscious described by Jung but not as some supernatural pool but perhaps as a memory inherent in nature, along the lines described by Rupert Sheldrake in his idea of morphic resonance. In fact, I think Sheldrake may be a missing link in connecting psychology and biology.

Human nature is such a vast topic and I would say that not just philosophers but every human being has some view on it because it is part of the way we understand the self and how to live. Of course, views about human nature can be seen as opinion, more especially when they are constructed in terms such as whether people are good or evil. The theories of human nature which are founded in science are grounded in evidence but even scientific models are only models.

Perhaps one fairly good model is the triangle of needs described by Maslow, which starts from the basic survival needs, moving upwards to the social needs, with the need for self-actualization at the top. This model is fairly diverse because it incorporates all the different layers.

I would say that any model of human nature needs to be able to take on board the many facets of the human condition. But my main argument is that however grand or smart a theory is, some kind of view of what a human being is central. In other words, the very concept of human nature in it a fluid but not fixed sense, cannot be redundant.

I am not sure if I am seeing what you are seeing.
Perhaps it is like looking at one of those magic optical illusion pieces of art.

I can see that I am saying that the various thinkers all begin from different premises about the human being, but the point I was making is that all models begin with a particular view of the human being.

I have wondered if my statement about the neuroscientists and biologists could be the contradiction because neuroscience is a part of biology itself. Perhaps what I said makes it sound like the brain is separated with hormones raging in a course of their own making, although I am aware that they are all interrelated.

Please put me out of my misery and tell me my contradiction.

In the first place, I wrote this thread discussion because I was startled when a person queried me using the term human nature in another thread. I had been believing that however they conceived it that all philosophy begins with some premises about human nature. But it appears that the person who made the comment disputed this.

I am interested in the origins, nature and future of humanity. My own philosophical interest is wide, but I have strong leanings towards the overlap between psychology and philosophy in understanding human nature. However, I do have an interest in anthropology, and anthropology does help us consider how there are differences and similarities between different cultures. This is useful for asking how fixed or variable human nature is.

I may be accused of looking at life from too much of a broad angle rather than being more focused. My original degree was in Social Ethics, which was a combination of philosophy, social science and comparative ethical traditions. But I am interested in understanding life and human belief as fully as possible, with a view to how humanity survive in face of an uncertain future.

Your reply was interesting and I can see why you say that once we are consciously aware of our shadow it functions differently.

In my own experience I have found that the more you experience the shadow the deeper it gets. I got into nu metal music when I explored the depths of my own shadow imagery while studying art therapy. This led me into a gothic underworld journey. But that was my relationship with my shadow and others may have very different experiences.

One strange thing I also experienced was that when I had some Jungian psychotherapy, in which my therapist was especially interested my dreams, I almost stopped dreaming. But I was having all kinds of experience in daily life and it was as the language of my unconscious was manifesting in waking life rather than confined to the night life of dreams.

I was also interested in your inclusion of the whole issue of anorexia nervous as an aspect of the shadow of female sexual liberation. I have worked briefly in an eating disorder unit and the disorder is predominantly in females, although some teenage boys are beginning to develop it as well. Anorexia is a good example of the shadow because so many people who develop wrestle with perfectionism. Jung spoke of the whole emphasis on perfection as a key component in psychic development, leading to shadow problems. Of course, in anorexia and bulimia the concern is about having a perfect body, which can in some ways be seen as a shadow aspect of the present liberal acceptance of sexuality.

Anyway, I am not sure if I have really delved into your thought that psychological theory is self refuting rather than being a self fulfilling prophecy, but it is all fascinating. Perhaps my shadow self is creating a block in my thinking around this. But what I would certainly say is that psychological views, especially the psychoanalytic ones have not yet been able to captivate the unknown aspects of the psyche at the present time and perhaps will never be able to do so.

I believe that we have a certain amount of choice about whether to be happy or sad, but not a complete one because we are creatures affected by experience.

When people encounter adverse experiences it is difficult to remain happy because it affects the brain chemistry, often leading to depression which can become serious in some cases, even generating suicidal thoughts. Individuals differ and some people get depressed more easily and it is difficult to know how much is biological and how much is connected to thought processes. It is probably a complex mixture of the two, but each of us has a unique disposition.

However, it is likely that intention plays a critical role too, especially in our own conflict between sadness and happiness. The more we dwell on the negative the more sad we become. It is a feedback loop and probably antidepressants enable people to stop dwelling on the painful thoughts. Of course, in most cases people don't get so sad that it gets to the point where they get so sad that they need medication. Some people are able to maintain happiness amidst the most horrible circumstances.

It is also possible that it is possible to draw towards ourselves certain experiences according to our mindset. Here, I am drawing upon the idea of the law of attraction, as spoken of by Esther and Jeremy Hicks. These writers suggest that the focus of our utmost wishes leads to our the experiences manifest in our lives.

Of course, you come from a Stoic point of view and I have not really done so, but I might do in the future, because I do battle between the extreme of sadness and happiness. Generally, my own experience is that sadness cannot be eliminated entirely because pain has to be acknowledged, but it is possible to avoid caving in to despair, by consciousness choice of aiming for happiness.

I am not sure about your statement that 'any psychology remains true only to the extent that it is neglected or rejected.' This seems to give in to the sway of popular opinion beyond truth itself. This seems to go against the whole pursuit of philosophy, the distant cousin of psychology.

However, what you go on to say, 'whatever the current popular theory is becomes incorporated into the mass identity, and so changes that psyche which it is a theory of,' is rather interesting. It seems to hint that psychological theory has a self fulfilling prophecy. No wonder the world is upside down we could say, it could be that the ideas we have internalised collectively shape us.I think that you are saying something very important here.

This would probably be true on a personal level too. I began reading Freud and Jung so it surprising that I keep stumbling across the terrain of the subconscious and the shadow. Of course I am just one person who entered into this world view by picking books from library shelves, zooming into a popular perspective. But of course it is becoming a buried tradition with the cognitive behavioral and neuroscientists winning.

But we better be careful what models of thought we allow to get onto the popular platforms as you say because they shape our path by becoming part of our psyches, as you say. I would imagine that this applies to philosophy as well as psychology.

I think you are in danger of discouraging the efforts of aspiring musicians and creative people in general. A lot of the best books were rejected many times and a lot of the artists were only valued later.

Surely, we should not be dictated to by the herd mentality. This is true for music, writing and even philosophy. It seems that you want to live in the past, with Radiohead as the be and end all of music. I do like them but they can be a bit gloomy.

What you are saying is rather defeatist. Art is not simply about popularity but the whole process of transformation through creativity and discovery. We need to usher in the new.

Yes, you seem to understand the psychology of projection of the shadow aspect of the psyche. It does create a form of blindness and perhaps the philosophers wish to remain blind, discussion soliptism.

I wrote the thread in order to create discussion of mass identity, because I think that cultural issues are an important matter. But apart from American politics there is not much discussion of the world. I am not wishing to undermine American politics but it is not the only country in the world.

You ask if I am related to an engineer and I am not as far as I know. But I like steampunk fiction writing and art so I get round to creating my own engines in some form when I get tired of writing comments and threads on this site.

What you are saying sounds really sad. You are suggesting that there is no audience any longer and that making music can only be for enjoyment. Is it only music therapy? I am not saying I cannot see where you are coming from, bearing in mind the way music is going on digital devices.

But 'Is this the end?' cries Jim Morrison. Is it the end for art and literature too? Perhaps even philosophy has experimented to its logical end and we are living in the after image of civilisation.

I would be glad to know what the question was related to if not the philosophy of art. I am not being critical, but just curious to know where you are you coming from, metaphorical or otherwise?

I am quite interested to know the angle you are coming from as your discussion point for the thread was brief. Is it in relation to the philosophy of art. I am also finding it interesting that your thread on darkness is currently sitting next to my one on the human shadow. Perhaps a shadowy darkness is hovering over us today.

But I do art work myself and do battle with issues of shadow and colour. I often choose to draw in black and white, and if anything get carried away and end up making art that is too dark. For this reason, I have even experimented in drawing in white to curb my gothic inclinations.

I do frequently draw in a pointilist way and I find that the play of light. Luminescence is extremely important and the colour spectrum can achieve certain pictorial representations limited by black and white.

But getting back to your question, perhaps light and darkness sits outside of the naiive realist colour palette.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thread and comment on it. I can see why some might regard Jung's whole approach and writings as rather unnecessary but I have found his views on the shadow central to my own philosophical development, so I just wrote a thread wondering if any other people found this too. I chose to focus on Answer to Job because I have a copy in my room and because this work is one in which he spells out his picture of the shadow in a dramatic way.

Of course, the book was written a long time ago, before I existed, and you are right to describe the current world conditions as far worse than the basic threat of nuclear war. That is one of the reasons why I think that his ideas on the shadow are relevant. Perhaps the more philosophical and political minded thinkers are aware of the dangers facing us but I think that many people choose to be blind, going about their mundane lives. If nothing else, I am hoping that the whole Covid_19 fear and havoc will enable people to wake up and question in a deeper way. The problems, especially poverty, are far from over.

I probably developed an interest in Jung as a result of trying to fathom my way out of knots imposed on me by being brought up in a strict Roman Catholic way. I am still busy integrating my shadow.

However, I don't think that refusal to take on board the shadow is the mere domain of the religious. I think that people who preach are those who try to deny the shadow. For example, one of my current housemates, who is a qualified dietitian, 'tut tuts' every time I make a cup of coffee and keeps recommending what I should eat, when I am not even convinced that I eat a particularly unhealthy diet. I don't really want to eat green leaves for breakfast and replace my coffee with ghastly herbal infusions. The point I am making here is that certain people impose moral judgements from the standpoint of certain inflated views. In terms of those who stand as moral judgements it is as if they have inflated consciousness of the raw dynamics of living. They cannot bear to confront the opposites within

I do recognise that the whole idea of opposites is within other traditions outside of Western culture, and my reading of Jung has led me in this direction as well.

I read your reply and I am left wondering if it is true or not that it is obvious to everyone that they have capacity for evil. But I am talking about each of us owning our own dark side. There are so many people who wish to project evil onto other while claiming to be good.

Anyway, I thank you for your feedback because it is helpful to know why many might disregard Jung's idea on the shadow as irrelevant.I also noted your suggestion that it is questionable whether human nature exists at all. I am not aware of this being debated currently on the site so I plan to start a discussion on that because I think it is an important question, also widening up the topic from the focus upon Jung.

I was interested to find that your thread on music.

I make art, not music but the reason I am replying is that I search for new music constantly. Going out looking for new music is as central to life for me as philosophers and somehow the two are linked. It is my own way of finding meaning, in coping with truth or the lack of it.

I began going to record shops as a child and listened to Bowie, Bryan Ferry, Status Quo and many other rock stars as a child. During adolescence I found U2, The Alarm, The Cure, Soft Cell and they became as real a part of my philosophical quest as the books I was reading.

But the point you are really making is about new music and I think that many people have stopped searching for it. I am sure that this affects musicians as much as people like me who inhabit record shops. Most people I know, even those in their early twenties do tend to listen to music of present eras rather than looking for the new. Those who do look tend to look on the web. This has led to most of the record shops shutting down. But I prefer physical music and travel into Central London to go to the shops that remain.

I have endless CDs, the piles are taller than me. I do think that the CD is the most durable form of music even though a lot of people have gone back to records. Albums became an hour rather about 30 minutes. This gave more opportunity for creation, but many people, even my mother, seem to be more interested in tracks which misses the whole point of an album as a piece of art. I do believe that certain albums are almost like a philosophy book and to just listen to tracks misses the whole point. Life would not be the same for me without Bowie's Alladin Sane album or U2's Achtung Baby.

Anyway, I think that there must be a need for new music. I listen to all genres from pop, rock, goth, and dance, but have to confess that I can't relate to classical which might even offend you as you are a musician. But I have found new albums this year, because I am a seeker, including new music by Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, The Psychedelic Furs, Sam Smith and up and coming bands.

Perhaps the present time of sadness and chaos of Covid_19 will bring forth greater music and creativity in general. To quote a band called The House of Love (late 80s)' The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam....'

Who knows, a whole new genre of music may emerge because as one friend, who plays guitar in a post punk band, has grumbled, there has been a lack of innovation since 2000. Of course as a musician yourself, you might disagree with this.

I see that no one has responded to this thread so far. I don't know whether it is because Jung's thought is regarded as psychology or out of date and irrelevant for philosophy. Also, perhaps the focus on his book Answer to Job may have been rather obscure and it may have seemed like an aspect of religious debate. Even though it was about the problem of evil it was intended as a debate about the future of humanity.

I would welcome feedback, including criticism. In the light of that, I could continue discussion on this thread, or perhaps create better threads.

I have read your last couple of posts and I am just wondering if it is just the book you have read which is the source of your nihilism identity crisis. Of course, I may be very wrong, so it is only a suggestion but I am thinking that the fear of bad things happening may be the underlying issue.

If it is a fear of bad things happening in the future I can empathise. I am inclined to worry about the future and dream up all sorts of scenarios I can imagine. Often, I find that what really happens is neither what I hope for exactly, or my worst feared possibilities, but something else entirely. Life is uncertain and it can sometimes be unnerving but, in a way, we can learn more about life and our true selves as we confront the unknown variables.

If what I am saying doesn't help please disregard it and read on to any other comments, because someone may have a better answer waiting for you, one which is able to relate more to the theory which has affected you so much.

I am sorry that I did not reply to your post sooner, but I have reflected on what you said. I agree with what you say about labels. While I was working in mental health care it was very difficult to stay clear of the limitations of labels, especially the one of borderline personality disorder. Just the idea evokes prejudice before you even meet a person. Psychiatric reports can also make horrible sweeping, condemning evaluations of people. Sometimes the reports and diagnostic statements are taken as facts when they are only opinions.

In a way I do find that I can think more freely having stepped outside of working in the psychiatric system. If I do go back to working in the area of mental health, because I am still interested in it as much as ever, I would prefer to do in some way which is less rigid and bound up with institutions.For example, I would consider working with the homeless and I prefer spending time with the people directly.

As for psychoanalysis, even that can be diagnostic and some therapists can be very judgemental. I prefer to read the writings of Freud, Jung as well as drawing upon the many different psychological perspectives in order to form the broadest possible understanding of human suffering and creative solutions.

I disagree with the first response because when working in the last few years I found that not only was I expected to receive all kinds of emails and other pieces of emails I was meant to be have read them and apply them at work. I think people are often being expected to read work emails on days off and I found this to be intrusive, not just in terms of time but about being allowed to switch off and relax.

In terms of too much information on the web and social media. It can be good, especially sites like this, for accessing ideas and interaction but it can become too overwhelming. There is just so much to take on board. Sometimes I just think my head will explode, and even then, I find that I am going back to my phone to look a new information in an addictive way.

Shamanism can be much more than faith healing. It can be about journeying to other dimensions. It can also be about high levels of creativity. Perhaps some of the greatest artists and musicians can be regarded as shamans.

Of course I was the one talking about near death experiences only a couple of weeks ago and I never started a post on out of body experiences. I decided that I will not do it at present because too many people on this site prefer quirky word games. I hope you get some interesting dialogue going and I don't know if you have been sent to the purgatory of the lounge already or whether you wished this discussion to be in the lounge.

Anyway, I won't bore you with my own personal interest in shamanism. But what I would say is that I think you probably need to write a bit more about your own angle and interest to get the best possible responses. But, I might be wrong as you may find that some people will write loads and I hope that they do.

To a large extent, I do agree with the analysis of the paradox you wrote in response to the various responses written to your thread yesterday.

I noted that the point of mine which you quoted was about finding the hardest truths. I can see why you chose this part as the important one rather than other aspects. I suppose that really my own experience of philosophy and life so far has been about uncovering painful truths, psychologically and emotionally.

The only difficulty that I had with your conclusion is that it is not so easy to get to the happy side of it all that you believe that Camus reached. It is too easy to slide into despair once we are outside of Plato's cave. The glare of the truth can be too much to bare at times.

When we live with the grim reality of existence it can be painful and we can be tempted to flee from the pain. For example, living with the idea that there is no life after death can be harsh, especially at times of crisis. I would confess that some of my questing is a manic defence against misery in its many forms. I am like Camus climbing out of the cave and seeing the shadows but often climbing back into the cave.

I do not expect you to be able to provide a solution for this. Perhaps the reason why the existentialist wrote so much fiction was a means of coping with the grim picture they saw. Certainly,
The Outsider by Camus was certainly anything but cheerful, showing a psychological picture of the character in the face of death. Nevertheless, it is a portrayal of how a person may end up acting after a death when he is not tied up with the pomp and glamour of religious rituals surrounding death.


The world of fiction, reading or writing it, can itself be a form of escape or analysis. But in a way, perhaps it can be liberating, free from the tyranny of logic. I will admit that I find some of what I regard as rhetorical word games in philosophy as hollow. The sophisticated logic can become the new caves, but of course I am biased in favour of the arts, as you already know but just think that it allows for the most honest freedom from despair.

I am sure that your post is related to your own other ideas, including thinking about Buddhism as a religion, arguments about faith, as well as questions about miracles. I see your paradox, but I think that we need to live with the harsh realities that just think that we need to work hard to find meaningful ways of surviving outside of the cave without collapsing into despair.