Thanks for your reply. I am pleased to say that I think that this current post has at least survived as far as puberty as it forms 2 pages now. I am grateful for your contributions and those of others in the last few days. At least it shows that Freud has not been dismissed and I am glad that people are thinking about his views about sex and life in general.

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown.

I think that the Oedipus complex makes sense in the grand scheme of mythology even if it does offend some people. I do believe that most myths and dreams can appear as ridiculous if taken out of the symbolic level.

The symbolism of myths and dreams do contain a level of relevance for understanding the battles which exist in our own life dramas, even though we often prefer to deny this. We like to believe that our own psychological issues are based on reason but the truth is probably very different.

I think that you are right to say that sex and death are two major themes of the inner life , but I do think that questions about religion too. The reason why I would say this beyond my own anxiety about religious questions is based on how religious materialism features so strongly in psychotic illness.

Regarding your comment about my suggestion that the philosopher's task is not to find ultimate answer to questions, I think that what I am saying is that I reject absolutist arguments in general. I am a bit suspicious of anyone who claims to know the full truth. I do see the various pictures or models of truth as relative in some ways. I think we are all entitled to our views and no one should claim that theirs is superior.

But extreme relativism is rather wishy washy and can end with absolute lack of commitment to any belief in particular. In that sense, I would argue more for pluralism in which the various models can be weighed up and slotted in to place, almost like the jigsaw puzzle metaphor which was created on another thread.

Bringing this back to where Freud fits in I would say that sometimes philosophers talk as if the world can be viewed in a straightforward logical matter. But I think that this is not true because reality contains symbolic truths arising from the unconscious.

I was impressed by your piece of writing and The Mad Fool's comments on it.

I am pondering your question about why you could not have come to your present conclusion at age 30.I think it is possible that if you had entered therapy your self understanding may have been speedier but there is only a possibility.


When I spoke of drowning in the sea of unconsciousness I was free associating in the playfully in the spirit of Freudian analysis.
However, I think it is possible to drown in the sea of unconsciousness. This happens when people become psychotic. There again, Freud did suggest that dreams are a psychosis we all experiences and of course the realm of dreams is central to Freud's thinking.

You mention going down to the pub as a direction you took and we could say that getting drunk is the most common means of drowning in the sea of unconscious. I have literally got lost a few times by going out to the pub as a reading venue and having a few too many drinks and getting lost, getting on the wrong bus home.

It is interesting when you say about the risks we take and how we look after ourselves. I sometimes think that my subconscious and ego play meaningful tricks on me, but almost with an underlying purpose but in analysing this I would draw upon Jung's ideas.

I will leave Jung alone for now having generated possible fictions about details of their meal together...But actually I think I remember the account a bit wrong and Freud did not swallow a fishbone but ate a fish meal and fainted. I will say no more about this obscure, surreal tale.

I am glad to see that you have joined into the thread discussion.

I believe that the significant of Freud for philosophy as well as philosophy cannot be ignored.

He is mostly talked about for his views on sexuality. These could be seen as sexist and the whole idea of the Oedipus complex is open to question. I would argue that despite the limitations of his view his thinking at least sparked off a lot of debate in this area.

I would suggest that the role of a thinker is not necessarily to come up with a completely coherent answer but to sketch out a panorama for questioning. I think Freud did this in many areas and that his writings such as Totem and Taboo, Civilisation and its Discontents, as well as Origins of the Uncanny were extremely unique pieces of writing with contributions to make to psychology, the philosophy of religion and many diverse fields of thinking.

I developed the thread because I think Freud's ideas, especially ideas such as the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, as well as his whole picture of the mind and unconscious processes is worthy material for philosophical debate.

I do feel that I am living part of an existential drama. I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore.

Perhaps I can get locked up in the Tower of London for my losing my reference to back up the argument about Freud swallowing a fishbone and blaming Jung for having a death wish against him.

I will bear in mind the possibility of links but I am not a big fan of them and rarely open them on other people's threads.

Really, my quest is about the territory of the imagination. I visited the Freud museum in Hampstead several years ago and that inspired me looking at Freud's desk and the statues he had of mythological figures. I think his journey was about mythical dimensions.

I will probably see what happens on this thread in the next couple of days but want to exist a bit in the physical world before London's second lockdown begins. I don't want to only exist in a room using my phone and do feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of lockdown because it seems that life as we know it is becoming part of the mythical past.

I am sure I never dreamt it up. I haven't had Freud and Jung in my dreams yet even though I do have some strange ones.

I will be wanting to find the evidence to check my own sanity, but it may be hard on the verge of a new lockdown because it was in a paper book.

I have committed a philosophical sin because I don't have the reference. I did the research for writing a piece for a creative non fiction writing course I was doing several years ago.

I had to get rid of piles of books when I moved earlier this year, so I am afraid it is unlikely that I have the book. Also, I discarded the piece I wrote as well and made a statement which I am unable to back up unfortunately, so I am sorry about this. But if I can find any useful clues I will get back to you.

I forgot to say that I completely agree with you that it is more important to find the right therapist rather than the right school of thought. When I was on an art psychotherapy course the therapist had to have a psychodynamic background and work with transference. In thinking about finding the right therapist some are lucky and find one straight away while some keep looking and can't find the person they are looking for. It makes it sound almost like looking to find a romantic partner.

reply="god must be atheist;467296"]
I think there are many other techniques. For expressing anger I have found metal, nu metal and emo harcore music helpful. I used to go and see loads of these bands play in Camden when I was at an angry stage of life, although live music is not happening at present. I even meditated to metal music at one stage.

If I am wound up and I often play music in bed and I meditate to dance and psychedelic music, with headphones on if it is night.

I also recommend therapy if you can be referred for it or able to pay. I have just spoken in length about this on my Sigmund Freud thread. If you have good friends hopefully they will listen. Some people love helplines. Personally, I have only made 2 calls to them in my life and did not feel they were wonderful.

Other options include writing, including journaling or other forms of creative expression. I am not sporty but some people find sport to be the ultimate way of expressing and relieving anger.

But, in concluding I would say while it is good to be aware of the options and choose what helps for you because we are all different. And of course there is the option of writing on this site to vent your feelings and opinions.

Yes, I believe that psychotherapy is very useful in the process of self understanding. I do believe that it is essential for self development as well therapeutic work. Counselling training as well as psychotherapy requires it but mental health nurse training does not and neither does cognitive behavioral therapy training. Psychiatric doctors don't have to have therapy but most do at least have some psychotherapy training when they are at registrar level, meaning that by the time they become consultants they will have this knowledge base to aid them in working with patients. I am speaking of the English system, so other countries may have different requirements.

There is too much emphasis on medication alone. Thorazine has been withdrawn for the last couple of decades in this country, as have many of the older antipsychotics. But, the newer drugs still have many side-effects, especially Clozapine. Many people are maintaining on a cocktail of medication, including antipsychotics and mood stabilizers and often experience a lot of weight gain and develop physical health problems, including type 2 diabetes.

Talk therapy is often encouraged but so much is about the recovery approach and about clear goals. I am not in any way opposed to this but do think therapies which involve deeper work involving examination of aspects of the subconscious is frowned upon by most mental health professionals. Of course, I realise that most people who are in the midst of an acute psychotic episode could not at this stage be expected to undertake psychoanalysis.

However, I would advocate for psychotherapy as a way of deeper understanding generally. I think the area of psychoanalysis and philosophy is fascinating. I do have an interest in the anti psychiatry tradition. Also, I am interested in the ideas of Lacan on psychoanalysis, but have not read much. But perhaps I will look for some paper books on this before England goes into a second lockdown.

The main thing I would say is that I don't believe that any tutor or professor could get away with calling a female student 'a castrating bitch' although you say he was your favourite so perhaps it was humour. Nevertheless, I think if it was said to many women who I know they would put in a letter of complaint. The professor might get disciplined or even dismissed for misconduct.

That is not to say that prejudice in all its forms has gone away. If anything, in this time of political correctness, prejudices are often expressed less directly but people may still feel the subtle effects of prejudice which is less overt and Freud's understanding of unconscious is a useful for thinking about the unspoken elements of interaction.

I started this discussion, not really with an intent to focus on Freud's to focus on his discussion of sexuality but of course this aspect of his writing cannot be side-stepped.

Personally I want to be reserved about discussing my own sexuality on this site because it is a public forum openly showing on the internet. I was surprised to find recently that when I googled my name all my posts and my picture were showing. I don't want to take the paranoid position but I am applying for jobs so I want to be a bit cautious. I know that I could create a pen name but I do not plan to at this stage because I have disclosed some personal information but it would be hard to find unless someone really wanted to read and read to find it. But I know that I have the option of creating a pen name and have even joked on another thread that I would choose Dr Dream. But for the time being I would rather reserve Dr Dream for a character in fiction projects.

Anyway, perhaps Freud's ideas on sexuality will be the way forward for this thread discussion. So far only a couple of people apart from you have commented on this thread so far, so I am hoping it does not die before it has even reached puberty. And, it may be a good thing if there was more discussion of sex on this site as it such a central part of life.

I can see Freud's weakness but enjoy reading his writings, so I dare'nt think how some may psychoanalyse me. Actually, I discovered a Primer in Freudian psychology in the library of my Roman Catholic school library, so his ideas were a liberating factor for me during adolescence.

I also did a course in art psychotherapy and this brought Freudian ideas to life. I think Freud's ideas are extremely important for psychotherapy as questions of religion and sexuality seem to figure strongly in mental illness, especially in psychotic breakdowns.

The ideas of Melanie Klein are interesting too from a psychoanalytic point of view. In particular, the ideas of splitting, projective identification, in addition to the concepts of the depressive and paranoid position.

While I was doing the art psychotherapy course I undertook personal therapy. My therapist was trained in Jungian psychotherapy. However, the therapy did incorporate some elements based on Freud's ideas. It included 50 minute sessions and four many of my sessions I lay on a couch. I found lying on the couch in therapy very wierd. I definitely think the therapy affected me permanently, mainly making me view life experiences differently and making me a bit more aware of my own blind spots.

Yes, the split between Freud and Jung is interesting. Apparently, it began when the two of them were eating a meal. Freud choked on a fishbone and accused Jung of having a death wish towards him.

Freud's disagreement with Jung's approach to religion was also involved. Also, some writers have suggested that there was racial disagreement between them, pointing to Jung's underlying prejudice against Jews.

I like the song!

I
I would demolish the sages and say that perhaps our words which can guide the future.

Perhaps we are amateurs but the world that we have known is crumbling.I miss libraries as a source of knowledge. I hope that they reopen, but one day, but for now perhaps the views proclaimed on websites, for better or worse.

I prefer paper books and real bodily humans talking but in the waves of uncertainty perhaps it will never happen, or for a while at least.

So, in the meantime, despite my sense of being a bit of a punk philosopher, perhaps we will have to be the best possible thinkers trying to make sense of it all, and as I said earlier today in another, perhaps for better or worse, as we are writing on an an official site we may end up being quoted for better or worse by philosophy students, as we are writing on an official website.

Ultimately, I agree with you. Many of us have been driven around the bend with people who have imposed their systems the so called name of truth.

Here I am ,trying to disentangle myself from the many layers of thinking and emotions,especially guilt, arising from oppression of those who claim authority on the basis of the faiths which they proclaim as ultimate and beyond questioning.

I hope that the scope of this website is forward
Perhaps we need to awaken more, with a real spirit of questioning rather than rest in the comforts of conventional thinking and logic with a view to moving into a future unknown, but different from the known certainties of the past.

Yes, I do agree ultimately. I do not consider myself as popular, but as a bit of an outsider.

If anything it is about survival. We live in a world of dog eat dog and a I have my own share of bullying and trying to resuscitate myself.

I would certainly not advocate a philosophy which elevates the popular. I do wish to advocate for many diverse and rejected philosophers. I believe that those most rejected can become the cornerstone as a Bob Marley track suggested and I would hate to think if Bob Marley was seen as below the level of the thinking of the philosophers, as in the most fundamental way he advocated the rights of all, beyond race, gender and all categories of exclusion.

One final remark, I am aware that Jung was attribute with racism against Jews and he had a certain amount of sexism too. This can be seen as a criticism of his work but is it to the point where his views should be rejected entirely?

The point I would make here is that I found meaningful in the writings of Ouspensky and passed a book onto him to a friend. I was dumbfounded when I discovered that my friend, who is gay, had latched onto a remark about homosexuality which I had barely noticed, and been thrown into an abyss of despair.

So, what I am saying is that the ideas of Freud, Jung and others have to be thrown into the cauldron of fire, juxtaposed with the relics of the Christian past as a way for a synthesis. This is a difficult endeavor with no easy answers and so returning to my thread discussion I would say simply that the ideas are a stepping stone for philosophical debate.

I do take on board your expression of Freud's sexism and the ideas of Eastern philosophy and I would welcome this kind of viewpoint as this was part of the debate I was hoping to spark. I am a fan of Freud but not to the point where I would override your concerns. This a key point of the issue of whether Freud can stand or fall.

I do not disagree and think that Freud and Jung drew upon the ideas of their time, but point to them as exponents of ideas about the unconscious. I certainly would not wish to dismiss those who paved the way for their work.

I think that Joseph Campbell is a long lost prophet but possibly too obscure for many on this site to understand.

I chose Freud as a pioneer because I think that he engaged with so many debates at the heart of philosophy, including religion and sexuality.

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy.

I am sorry if I did appear to have reacted to the book you read a bit prematurely. I believe I saw in WH Smith's at some point. When I come across a physical copy of it I will read it.

This is the first forum I have ever joined and I probably would not have done so if the pandemic had not occurred. I used to plod along to events like creative writing classes and this forum has become my new outlet.

I hope you are right in your belief that you are a genius because I think we need a few on this site and in the world.

Yes, I am glad to meet you on this site. I see that you have started a few conversations.I decided to dive in and write one on Freud.

The only thing is that this forum can be a bit addictive. I nearly missed getting off the bus because I was busy writing on my phone...

I will try to look up Searle's ideas. But I miss libraries so much as in England they have been shut since March. The Universities have reopened but not the libraries and if they never reopen I do fear the impact on philosophy if physical books become buried fossils of the past.

I disagree with the last comment you made. I think some people are put off by threads which leave a lot of scope for discussion but if anything I believe they can be used very creatively if used well.

I am extremely interested in the whole tradition of thinking stemming from Jung's ideas. This has given rise to the archetypal psychology of James Hillman. It also links in with ideas of Joseph Campbell, which have been useful for understanding the symbolic dimensions.

In relation to science, one writer who I would recommend, who I have not seen mentioned on this site so far is Rupert Sheldrake. He wrote from a biological point of view, coming up with a idea called morphic resonance, which was an inherent memory in nature, which links the processes of evolution with Jung's idea of the collective unconscious.

Anyway, I wish you all the best in developing threads. I think I have been the mistake of being too vague at times and it is useful to ask specific questions. I have been using the site for a couple of months and still learning not to get despondent. I feel that there are many writers on the site who prefer to shut down thinking rather than open up the most creative possibilities.

I have a few ideas for threads, including one on Freud and one on Jung's contribution to the understanding of the problem of evil. But I am trying to put a bit of thought into them so that they do not get dismissed and rejected in short responses of text babble.

I have just seen thalt I made an error. It was two other writers and not you who included videos.
So I apologise for that.

Actually, I do believe that putting videos by others as evidence and this is ultimate evidence and I question why they think that because someone has recorded something on video makes it anymore valid than anything we say...( You never know students might start quoting us as evidence because it is a recognised website, although names like Hippyhead might look odd in a list of essay references.)

But my point that you need to develop a solid argument if you want to dismiss the experience of near death accounts still holds, because so far I am not convinced of the logic of your views.

And in conclusion, I will say that I am not against the 'expert" opinions of psychiatrists but wish to question the experts.

I think that you are going to a ridiculous extreme in suggesting that we should be 'largely dismissing" the accounts of those who have the near death experiences because these stories are the raw material for discussion.

Getting back to the analogy of psychiatry and schizophrenia, you could ask if psychiatrists should stop listening to patients? Should the patients be sedated into silence.?

What you are saying about near death experiences does denote them into the purgatory of being labelled as delusions. Surely this is not a logic of philosophy but more an attitude, not backed up by sound and coherent argument.

You offered some references but did not appear to have engaged with the material in question. You offered a video of a psychiatrist arguing against them but to do so was no more evidence than offering a video of a person claiming to have had a near death experience. There are many psychiatrists with many opinions. Also, I have worked alongside psychiatrists and would not elevate them as having supreme monopoly on truth.

I am not wishing to dismiss your dismissal of near death experiences, but I do think that you need to explore arguments in a deeper way.

I do agree that the quest for truth is a goal rather than a static end to be achieved. I dare'nt think what the one truth to end all others would be if it could be found. Whose ends would it serve?

As it is we have the many viewpoints fighting to be heard amidst a chaotic world. We can search for those which seem more truthful and useful and hopefully see better ways of thinking. But if the world as we know it still exists at the end of this century perhaps the most en vogue thinkers will be seen as antideluvian because a whole new paradigm of perspective might have emerged from the depths of the gutter of the collapsing world.

I think that you are entirely correct in saying that repeated negative experiences and tragedy can disintegrate the will and this is the source of mental breakdown, including depression, bipolar effective disorder, psychosis and personality disorders.

Probably the variations mental disorders take is more than biochemical markers but also about the unique development of ego. In particular, there is so much of a recognised link between borderline personality disorder and trauma, to the point that it can be equated with post traumatic stress disorder.

Of course, the question is how can the broken, fragmented be repaired? The most conventional approaches are medication and I would most certainly not deny the importance of medication but I do not think that this will really solve the depths of the broken past and unfortunately individuals are being offered the cheapest, so called cost-effective ones. The trend at present is even computer packages of cognitive behavioral techniques.

Of course there are treatments involving psychotherapy, counselling and the arts psychotherapies. Unfortunately the referrals are lengthy and many find it hard to access the therapies unless they are able to pay and the costs are often beyond many people's means.

Personally, despite the so-called lack of evidence, my sympathies lie with the art therapies. I have seen individuals able to create new ways of seeing the past in visual art and creative writing.
And I would go one step further and recommend philosophical writing as a possible way forward. This is based on a view that many of the insights of the great philosophers were based on mental gymnastics in attempt at recreating the past.

This post is interesting but I think it is probably an old one resurrected. It managed to get me thinking.

It seems to me that the problem with the idea of faith is when it is used by others as an argument. As a psychologist construct, along with will it is a driving force for any motivation in life whatever system of belief we adhere to.

The problem is when people use the notion of faith to try and impose their system of beliefs on others. This can be done by religious and political believers, who wish to impose ideas on others. It comes down to wishing to coerce others into believing without questioning and this is very dangerous as it suggests that people should not question for themselves but have faith.

It can be a basis for indoctrination, especially in the young because it involves manipulating of emotions with the dismissal of appeals to reason.
In particular, one can be made to feel guilty for questioning.

I am inclined to think the use or misuse of the idea of faith in its intention of overriding rational questioning may stem from a subconscious certainty of belief in the person who introduces faith as a basis for argument.

I am not sure that knowledge applies to the external world alone because there is so much which can be gained about inner reality within the work of great writers, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

I think that both people who have subjective experiences and those who stand back objectively have important contributions. In the case of schizophrenia, both the ideas of the psychiatrist and the patients offer valid insights. The dialogue between the two perspectives can be extremely interesting.

In the case of the near death experiences some of those who have them are too immersed to see them at face value. Others can go to the other extreme and dismiss them as psychotic fantasies and the task of the philosopher is to juggle these views and possibly come to a different conclusion altogether.

As you have enough interest to have created the post perhaps all you need to is to think ask is whether you believe that the experiences are real or not?

At least you are honest about it. I have not died but probably take an interest because I have had out of body experiences and probably my interest began from that really. I will wait and see if people add more to the thread in the next few days and may create one on out of body experiences next week.

So, we may again on another thread, and I do like the picture and your pen name. For the time being I am not taking a pen name, because life is too surreal at the moment anyway, but if I do this at any point I might become Dr Dream.

I am a bit disappointed that you have not engaged in any discussion about the philosophy of near death experiences when it appeared that you wished to do so.

All you appeared to say was that you miss someone called Sam who was special and wrote on the topic. Unfortunately, I was not on the forum when he was writing and it is likely that other new forum members have not come into contact with his ideas.

I do believe that there are probably many new members who could give worthwhile ideas but you have not even given a starting point. I offered a bare sketch of some basic ideas before just before the exchange between Hippyhead and Tim Wood. I am sorry if this does not in anyway live up to the standard you would expect but I do think you need to be a bit more forthcoming.

I want to help your thread stay top of the charts, even though I think its title may not even tempt some to open it at all. I just would like to know a bit more about your thoughts or even why you think that it is the subject matter of philosophy. I think that it is but I am not sure that everyone does, from a couple of responses so far.

I have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.

I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.

My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability.

Your references are useful and I may try to read them if I can at some point.

I think the subject has probably a very extensive body of literature from many perspectives and certainly while I am writing on my phone I feel very limited but I certainly see my own remarks as mere reflections based on previous reading.

One remarkable by John R Searle in his book The Mystery of Consciousness is that 'the simulation of mental states is no more a mental state than the simulation of an explosion is an explosion is in itself an explosion.' I think that this point is pertinent because there is a danger of the near death experiences being viewed in a literal way. Of course I am not wishing to undermine the value of the experiences for individuals. They often have seem of profound and transformative value for the individuals but based on my reading of Jung I would see them as symbolic primarily.


Edward F Bruner in his discussion of the creative persona has pointed to the creation of experience of light in connection with interaction between the left and brain hemispheres. I think the reason why this is importance of possible neurology involved in possible brain processes.

While having a limited knowledge of neuroscience the reason for pointing to this is that it does seem central to the experience of near death survivors is light, although some accounts include dead relatives which suggests that the experiences is more than a creation of light imagery.

This leads back to the possibility of placing the experiences in the level of deep dream states at least. Of course, as mediators are aware breath has a profound impact upon higher states of consciousness. Perhaps this involves the trigger of alpha and theta states of consciousness.

One thing I will also say, before closing for now, is that it is interesting that the tunnel of light features in those who return from death, suggesting possible heavenly journeys but not of any descending to hellish regions. But of course, the history of visionaries, including William Blake, and many others, especially those diagnosed as schizophrenic, have known infernal as well as heavenly regions, which could lead to the need to frame the near death experiences within the context of the larger picture of visionary and other altered states of consciousness.

I am personally inclined to suspend judgement based on the whole issue that the altered states of consciousness may be derived from chemical states including lack of oxygen. I have never died but have had out of body states arising from stress, or if I have been severely lacking in sleep or food.

Apart from chemical imbalances I think that the layers of consciousness may also be involved. I am interested in the mythic depths of consciousness including the writings of Stranislav Grof about life in the womb, and more importantly, the ideas on dream imagery and archetypes arising from Carl Jung's ideas.

Of course the near encounter with death is a truly archetypal event.

I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. I think the more we think the more diverse our conclusions will become. In backing this up I would say that the history of philosophy from ancient times has been one in which Plato in particular created some profound beginnings for us to create 'footnotes', as it has been stated. But after all the centuries of thought views have been ever diversifying, and I am not sure that this a negative point against developments.

In addition, you throw in the topic of predestination as if is a taken for granted assumption. Perhaps you need to back this up or create a post about this initially if this is part of your underlying basis of argument about the nature of conclusions. It may be the issue about predestination is the starting point of the debate you are creating in the first place and it may get lost in the haze of your concern about conclusions in the mess of the world.

Replying to you as a poster what you were proposing is far more interesting. I might try something new starting from the mind and body problem and looking more broadly to other fields because I do believe that philosophy needs to engage with other disciplines, rather than closing in upon itself

I am not saying that what I write will be wonderful but I will have a go and I don't think it would need a whole blog or a whole life time's worth, although it might be a worthwhile life spent. But I will wait and try and reframe the question differently because I don't want to block the creative pathway of the original inventor of the post. In the meantime others, including yourself, can dive in and may come up with some brilliant insights and analysis.

This current post may have all sorts of exciting twists and turns. And in wishing to make a contribution rather than a mere criticism of its early beginnings I would mainly just ask whether the near death journeys should be taken at face value for what they appear to represent or as something else?

I don't see the logic of what you are saying by saying that anyone who created us had the ability to ensure that thought processes led to the same conclusion. This is because on an empirical level it is clear that the exact opposite is true. Or are you wishing for a return to Kant's transcendent logic and categorical imperatives?

To some extent I see what you are saying. That is why I am waiting to see what happens. The only problem is that the originator of the thread, as far as I see never actually put forward any philosophy propositions and the last couple of comments he made were like mere text banter and nothing more.

I would put forward ideas about the philosophers of near death experiences but think any serious discussion would be lost amidst pointless banter.

I believe that rather than be given an overriding power to moderate the originator of the thread should be given respect. That is why I will not write my own thread at this stage because I wish to wait and allow him to respond and write an actual philosophical argument, because at the moment no actual philosophcal propositions or arguments as such has been put forward so far.

If I do begin my own thread I will try and frame it slightly differently but as a philosophy question and I realise that others may wish mine to be demoted to purgatory and his to reign supreme on the front page.