Perhaps, as Jung argued the picture of God, as portrayed in the Biblical Jahweh story, has a wrathful side. This is in contrast to the forgiveness of Christ, and this is the dark side of religion.

But of course if people don't want to be forgiven to be forgiven that is their problem not God's.

Of course, the idea of eternal hell is the absolute punishment but perhaps it is best seen as an image rather a concrete reality.

I think that the whole whole historical development of Christianity drew upon fear. In particular, the canon of teachings put together by the early Church forefathers, reflects this. Even though I do think that the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can be interpreted as a spiritual truth on one hand, there still fear evoked.
in the Biblical passage.

I don't think that the fear I imagined, especially as a teenager was simply of my own making.

As the gospels were written down long and canonized many years after the life of Jesus it is quite likely that the political aspects of The Church were responsible for this fear.

Philosophy enables the disentanglement of ideas and political factors which influence the development of these ideas.

I replied to you but wrote it in response to your comment in the thread about resurrection accidentally.

I meant to send this response to the thread I started on the unpardonable sin and I accidentally sent it to this one instead.

That was after I decided this morning that I would not make a comment to this discussion as I would not be confident enough to engage in such a sensitive discussion on a post being read by others. Perhaps my error is my subconscious telling me that I should have be taking part in this debate but I will leave it for now as I am too tired.

I
I think my own fear really falls into the scope of the psychology of religion than theology. The only theology I have read was about the problem of evil which I read when looking at Jung's Answer to Job.

I think all these areas on the edge of philosophy are very interesting. I also have a strong interest in religious psychosis. Apart from having worked in mental health care, I have friends who experienced florid psychosis, with religious content, such as belief in being a fallen angel.

When approaching issues of religion I think it is important to approach the matter from many angles rather than just theology because that starts from the standpoint of religious beliefs. I think that we can create a philosophy of religion through encompassing multidisciplinary perspectives, including sociology and anthropology.

You say that you have been through theological hell. I am interested in your experience and perhaps it is worth standing back from it as a philosopher. I don't know how much we should share on this site. In some ways it is worthwhile but once personal experiences are shared we may feel vulnerable and exposed.

But, my general remark is that I don't think the theologians should claim monopoly upon the philosophical issues arising within religious belief, even those arising within Christianity.

I don't think I have a big fear of committing sins now, but I managed to convince myself that I had committed the sin during the night before starting a new school and was not in good form on my first day. I worried about it for months and did not tell anyone. Eventually, I told classmates and the RE teacher found out. He called me in to see me but I don't think he realised that I had not done anything. I think he made presumptions that I had been blaspheming or swearing and did not understand the nature of my fear, which was really about the whole concept of hell.

I think it was the whole fear aspect of Catholicism. The hell and damnation. Even now, if I have to go to church I do struggle, even though I know that Jesus preached forgiveness. I think I tap into the repressed part of Catholicism and Christianity.

I have found Jung's critique of religion helpful in understanding the shadow side of Christianity belief. But also, I think my early struggles with religious belief were the starting point for my journey into philosophy.

I agree that Hinduism does think that there is planning for the soul but I am not sure that the idea of soul debt is exactly the same as a soul contract. The main difference would be that the notion of soul debt was based upon repayment as karma. The soul contract is not this exact because the belief is that the soul actually makes an agreement to pursue specific tasks. I am not sure rather than Hindu idea involves a negotiation but is more a part of direct cause and effect.

However, I cannot read Hindi scripture and have only read some Western interpretations of the Hindu ideas. Perhaps there is someone of Hindu origin who could give a clearer explanation of the Hindu understanding of karma, although it is probably likely that Hindu beliefs vary like other religions systems of thinking.

I don't know if this is relevant to your debate but junk DNA may be a missing link. There is a body of scientific thought that while only 2 strands were thought to be important the so called junk may contain unknown hidden potential. This may contain areas of potential including aspects relating to emotions, but of course this is an area of speculation.

As no one replied I will say that I think the idea of a soul contract is not really a part of mainstream religion but more of an idea associated with beliefs about mediumship. The term is usually based on esoteric teachings, especially reincarnation and karma and other new age teachings based on Eastern traditions, sometimes blended with Christian beliefs about guardian angels. I think there is some reference to it in Sufism, the esoteric Islamic tradition.

You wrote this 5 hours ago and no one has responded but, possibly out of my depths as usual, I am daring to speak.

Your debate is one which embraces the perspective of the extreme idealist position or even the Hindu position that the so called real world, 'maya', is an illusion in contrast to the materialist position. Amongst the materialist there is the behaviourist psychology stemming from the ideas of B.F. Skinner, in which consciousness is seen as a byproduct of the brain
Or, coming from a different angle there is Jean Paul Sartre's claim that 'existence precedes essence.'

What a heavy debate. I am inclined to think that none of these positions contains the full perspective and that mind and matter are weaved together, with neither coming before or after. Perhaps the underlying truth is at the heart of quantum reality, Plato's forms, Kant's transcendent reality or even Jung's collective unconscious.

My answer may be inadequate but perhaps after my desperate grasp of the possibility panorama of your question others may choose to step in with more sophisticated academic logic.

I think that there are plenty of books on the new age fringe about consciousness and out of body states. But there is little connection between that and psychiatry. The challenge would be to write one but it would take a lot of research.

I have just lost my job in psychiatry recently and wouldn't mind doing something like this one day. I am not sure that I am up to it and I do need to get paid work but I do see writing a book on the interface of philosophy and psychiatry as a purposeful dream or ambition at least...

Yes, I have been meandering around the shopping centre thinking the answer I wrote what I really really believe.

It came from the repudiation of near death experiences as proof of life after death.

Really, I think that the mystery of consciousness transcends the whole body and mind dichotomy all together, or to put it differently perhaps the mind can be seen as associated with the body rather than dependent on it.

But my own basis of belief is really based on my own experience of out of body experiences. I have experienced these on a number of occasions, especially when I have been under stress. During one such experience I was aware of a silver coil attached to the centre of my forehead and during the experiment I was aware that if the coil was severed I would die. At the time, I was still at school and was not aware of Descartes' identification of that point as the seat of the soul, or of the third eye chakra.

In a few recent experiences I was aware of my body lying down and I could feel my astral body rising but it felt like the out of body experiences was related to lower chakra points. Friends told me I must have been hallucinating...

So I do grapple with the mind and body problem, partly seeing the matter from the conventional clinical perspective because I have trained in psychiatric nursing, but part of me keeps an open approach to the mystery of consciousness.

With regard to old age, I have worked with dementia clients in art groups and apart from all the negative aspects of memory loss some of their grapples with reality do seem to be about a synthesis of life experiences.

From my point of view, there are no definite answers but it is such an interesting area for speculation.

I am not sure that the fact that bodily age and mental age do not match is an argument in favour of dualism. This is because it only suggests that the brain is not always affected by bodily aging, This could equally be applied to other aspects of developmental aging. For example, while many people develop high blood pressure in later life not everyone does.

Dementia is more of an illustration against dualism because in this condition there are clear signs of brain abnormalities which can be observed on CT scans. In the case of precocious developers it may that certain areas are activated by certain neurotransmitters. Of course, there is one strange conditions, like people who can do identify what day of the week someone was born at an instant, after being told their date of birth. I even met someone who could do this. However, unusual abilities or disabilities simply point to complexities of the way in which the brain translates into consciousness.

Even if you say that the mind does not age while the body does, while a human being is alive the mind and body are still connected through the brain rather than separate. So the only way to know that they can be independent would be after all bodily functions have ceased entirely

I personally have read Blavatsky and Alice Bailey and other esoteric writers, especially Rudolph Steiner.

I think these views have a lot to contribute to philosophy, but I have mentioned the esoteric traditions on a couple of other threads. I am not going to be put off by a couple of negative responses I got because I think an open mind is what is needed.

Rather than narrowing down the perspective which can be incorporated into the philosophical arena, I think we should reading as widely as possible and not worrying too much about whether we can analyse them accordingly to conventional philosophical methods.

Yes, I do agree with you that philosophy can be seen as a 'zero start' for examination of truth,
even if this creates many problems.

I suppose this is the beginning of the quest of the philosophers and if it was too easy there would be no work left to be done. Perhaps the constant refinement of truth allows for the evolution of ideas. The art of philosophy does not allow for a static picture.

Of course, even then we have biases based on our life experiences and personal inclinations. But, hopefully, the more aware we can be of our biases, the more thorough we can become in the process of searching for underlying truths.

I sent my reply to Pinprick whereas you started the discussion.

I am writing from London, so drug culture may be different in other places. But what we have is very underground. A lot of people are smoking really heavy skunk and become psychotic.

Perhaps what we need is a culture accepting of some currently banned substances in which quality controlled products are available. But there is so much hostility towards CBD which barely has a trace of THC.

What I would like to see would be legal availability of psychedelics. But there would probably need to be the right environment.

I am definitely not taking about legal highs and ambiguous substances as I have come across people who got really ill and even ended up in ICUs on them. The problem is that makers of these substances were working around loopholes in the law and came up with toxic concoctions.

There is even some evidence that microdosing with Lsd can be good to improve depression. Perhaps we need a new psychedelic revolution, but preferably along the line of native culture vision quests.

I don't really consider myself a real academic but find your discussion of quantum physics as a challenge to logical possibilities as an extremely interesting one. I have read David Bohm's 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' and think that this points to dimensions of existence underlying the physical universe and perhaps these are what Jung spoke about as the collective unconscious.


I also read some of Stephen Hawking's ideas, although I do not understand the maths and I have sympathy with the ideas of the physicist Fritjof Capra. The important element, I believe , is the way in which these thinkers embrace the unknown.

All of this leads a way open to the fullest view of multidimensional reality, including the views of the mystics. It points to a fuller view of reality than the one adhered to by most scientists and it is an important area for philosophy because most of the prevailing paradigms are limited.

In a way, I have spent time on new age fringes where there is so much way out speculation. But there are interesting areas including the idea of junk DNA and parallel dimensions. I do believe that this can be an interesting area of exploration for philosophy, touched upon by transpersonal thinkers, including Ken Wilber.

I am most certainly prepared to read the antinatalist philosophy. I am prepared to read all views because reading is the one thing I find easier to do more so than anything else, especially the most mundane tasks like washing and dressing

What I will do is read though, because sometimes, especially with this site, it is so easy to react immediately. It is all about listening to even the most extreme viewpoints before leaping to reply. I don't have much sympathy with the antinatalists but I have to hear them to the fullest. I was impressed by Shopenhauer1's list of hates at least.

I can appreciate a bit of doom and gloom. If you saw my CD collection. I embrace Joy Division, Nirvana and even a bit of Slipknot, not forgetting Korn.

It is all about getting the right balance. We can descend to underworld and rise to shamanic ecstasy. But sometimes it is all about survival mode as well as the fate of humanity. I guess
I just don't have that much sympathy with antinatalism. I just don't understand it and I can make more sense of death metal than the antinatist stance. But I prefer goth, ranging from Bauhaus, The Cure and Marilyn Manson and even a bit of Fields of the Nephilim at the right time.

I frequently beat myself up feeling useless at times. When I had a job I used to compare myself with higher achievers and I probably have a problem of low self esteem generally.


However, perhaps discussion in these debates is a worthy purpose. You are involved in so many debates on this site. Unfortunately, philosophy is a bit of a neglected and rejected cause whereas perhaps it should be seen as the cornerstone of existence.

When I tell people I know that I am spending time on a philosophy website I frequently get a negative response. Most regard football as a better interest! Philosophy and music are my football. I have absolutely no interest in sports and think that they are the most useless pursuits of all even though most people seem to rank them so highly.

I am replying to your question as to whether there is a consensus to the highest ideals and aspirations. I don't think that there is an actual consensus but I am interested in ethics as well as many other areas of philosophy. This would include areas such as medical ethics, economic ethics, as well as war, peace and the future.

But I am certainly not part of the moral right. I like exploring issues from as many angles as possible
I am very influenced by postmodernism and the whole deconstruction of language.

I think you are being rather concrete in your thinking. Perhaps you think that the idea of philosophy being a game undervalued the tasks of the philosophers. In some sense this is the case and it could arguably be seen as an arduous quest to climb a high mountain. But surely the philosopher's journey needs to be enjoyable too.
The idea of a game captures this element.

Of course the idea of a jigsaw puzzle is a metaphor. As someone with an arts based view I I find metaphors important for capturing truth. Also, even scientists build models, which are only models as well.

All pictures, models and paradigms are only representations of truth.

Of course, as philosophers we want to go beyond the shadows on the walls of Plato' s cave but even the most profound philosophical writing is limited by the constraints of the meaning of the words which form the key concepts.

Perhaps life is like a jigsaw puzzle but not a static one, because the overall picture changes too sometimes as well.
You begin with edges, building up the picture with all the issues, or sometimes moving into the middle with the questions of whether there is a God, whether mind and body are separate, free will to create a systematic picture.

But sometimes when the picture is almost created it is inevitably wrong even though the parts had seemed to fit. This involves a whole new construction of belief. This process could last for a lifetime.

So, in a sense the picture can change so to continue the metaphor, perhaps it is like a jigsaw game on a digital device. Not only is it about finding parts but the screen image is mutating too.

As this goes on we may become trapped in a long game of looking for missing pieces and perhaps we won't even find them before the screen changes once again. And what will the picture be that is emerging: a beautiful watercolour picture illuminated by light or a gothic image of monsters and werewolves amidst dark, fiery shadows.

I do believe that there are many unanswered questions in philosophy. But I am struggling, with the bombardment of academic questions and those about truth. The many threads and so many questions.

I will be back with questions but I need to stand back and think clearly. But I will be back, after reflection, because there is so much to discuss but in the meantIme if anyone wishes to say there areas of concern I will do my best to incorporate them into any threads which I create.

We need to examine all aspects of reality and the creators of this site need to be thanked for creating a wonderful means of debate and discussion, in all its diversity.

I definitely agree that philosophy is not supportive therapy. It is love of wisdom, but why does that only "partly depend on finding the truth''?

Actually, the reason I did engage in discussions with the people with views that human beings would be best not existing was because I wished to understand where they were coming from. It also was in the context of discussion and pain which is worthy of exploration.

The point where I got really fed up was after I explained that I had never procreated and I thought that he or she did not. Then the person said that they had procreated, was not experiencing suffering and just wished that they did not exist in case they ever had to suffer. I came away feeling the whole discussion had been rather despondent about all this.

But I guess this was just a bad experience and this happens in all interaction. I have only been using the site for about a month, so I will learn from it. I am willing to explore and question almost all areas of debate with as open mind as possible but the point at which I will seek to withdraw is when I feel too despondent to continue.

I had got to that point when I just started seeing the latest discussion was a logical defence of murder. I am not a moral absolutist but the thread did start to disturb me. Obviously, my disturbance is my issue and not anyone else's problem, but it was at this point that my own spontaneous response was to create this thread, really in attempt to balance discussion agenda.

Nevertheless, as I probably said in an earlier response I do like discussion which is controversial and thought provoking. I like exploring unknown territories, but just need to know when to switch off when it gets overwhelming.

I think one of my thoughts when I began this thread was whether others were feeling as I felt about some of the threads. I do think feelings about discussion need to be expressed rather than mere abstract logical arguments

Yes, you are quite right. It is best to ignore some threads if the discussion doesn't seem helpful. I did not make any response to the one on murder because I just knew it would be pointless if people had certain views I came away feeling really fed up after two people kept defending their beliefs that it would be better if humans did not exist any longer because it would end suffering.

Saying that there are some really interesting posts, with very high levels of philosophical debate. I have just spent too much time reading the site on my phone because I am spending a lot of time at home presently. I do think that it is good that the site provides an open forum this does mean that some really extreme views are going to predominantly at times. But, I of all people do appreciate diversity and I would not want chocolate box discussion but ideas which generally areas for deep thought.

I am not sure what you are saying at all. I think discussion about limits, extremes and desires are worth discussing if that is what you mean.

So, you have procreated and I have not but you are the one recommending procreation. I find life difficult struggle with depression daily and you say that do not suffer. Yet you are one fearful of suffering at some point in the future, so think that it would be be better if humans weren't born.

It shows how upside down and back to front we both are. Or, perhaps fear of suffering is worse than the reality, itself.

I just noticed a typing error in my comment it should have read that you(or I ) will NOT bring children into the world. I just thought I had better clarity that was what I meant.

Basically, it seems that you are saying that you think it is better if the human race does not exist.
If you really believe this you entitled to your views but while you(or I) will bring children into the world the majority will.

One question I would just wonder about, do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all?

Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations.

I do not agree with your basic logic. You say that once a person is living that there is a drive to keep on living and this makes sense, with reference to the life instinct or drive, identified by Freud. You go on to say that this drive is not present before life is started and this is a flawed argument because it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately.

With regard to my dismissal of antinatalism, I would say firstly that I do not have an ultimate agenda in favour of procreation. I am not even partaking in procreation but that is about relationship choices more than anything else. Once, I was even in a conversation with someone who thought I was selfish because I was not in a procreating which was extremely ridiculous too.

However, I am not of the view that it is wrong for children to be born. That is because the antinatalist view as far as I understand it is an inadequate solution to the problem of suffering. While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist.

But of course I am not in any way saying that you need to procreate. That is your basic choice. I am simply pointing out that I think that antinatalism is not the necessary solution to the problem of suffering.

In the first place Shopenhauer1's thread was about whether pain was good or not. The argument that children should not be brought into existence is based on the premise that pain should can only ever have negative consequences. That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation.

How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future.

I think a key issue that you are pointing to is the need to see the self as an interior viewpoint rather and this leads to fluidity in self perception. The Buddha and other spiritual teachers knew this and perhaps this understanding of the question of personal identity can be aided by meditation.

Surely, your complex 4 step argument is simply saying that each one of us has to realise our subjective identity and viewpoint in a world of others with similar subjective internal world. Some people may have difficulty accepting the value of the validity of others' minds and of course this limits their ability in communication.

In particular, researchers into autism is points to people on the autistic spectrum as having limited ability to understand other people's inner consciousness. As autism is a disorder in development perhaps the ability to identify as one individual within a world occupied within a world of others with minds is a critical stage in brain development in childhood.

Of course you are entitled to any viewpoint which you wish to have but I do have one true memory which might be useful for you to reflect upon.

I used to woman who did not wish to have children because she thought that the world was to horrible to bring children into. However, she was married and while her husband respected her opinion her husband was wishing for children. The woman gave in and had a daughter and a son. At some point, the daughter who was about 10 or 11 somehow found out how her mother had not wished to have children. The daughter was deeply distressed by the mother's view that the world was too bad a place to bring children into.

I have not seen the woman for a few years and the child would be a teenager now, so I don't know how the dialogue continued. I think it is an interesting real life scenario pointing to the way in which the people of the future can judge for themselves whether they should have been born at all.

I know that you say that Shopenhauer1 is saying that life is not worth starting rather than living but the logic of this is not rational. Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely?

Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings.

I am not really seeing the point you are making about not bringing people into the world because who is going to stop them. Surely you are not wanting prohibitions. Surely we don't want further loss of civil liberties than is happening already. Also, I think your thinking is rather negative.

The arguments you have been conveying in this thread are very convoluted and consist of black and white thinking, starting with the question of whether pain was inherently good or bad, and, after a few responses you are declaring that children should not be brought into the world.

Saying that, the whole question of suffering is an area for discussion but I think you need to formulate clearer and more sound arguments.

I am also wondering if your views are based on personal experience of suffering. If they are, I do empathise with you. At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances.

So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.

At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources.

Worry can create sleepless nights and misery. But of course it is better to be conscious of sources of misery than in denial or manic flight.

It would just be better if the leaders, who have the power to influence culture and prevent extinction did more worrying rather than leaving it to the rest of the population. I am sure the leaders are struggling but unfortunately I am not sure that they are grappling with all the philosophical issues deeply enough. Unfortunately a lot comes down to money and power for the politicians.