Finding this life worthwhile is a different matter from living with a belief in an afterlife. When religious believers encourage us to put our hope in an happiness in a life after death rather than encouraging us to find it in this one is missing the point.

Everyone has different life experiences and some know hell and some know both. I do experience periods of depression but do have peak experiences too, moments where I feel in touch with the transcendent.

If you get locked in feelings of monotony it is worth considering what you think would make you truly happy. I am not of the belief that happiness is bound to material goals or completely separate from it. Some people have material and social factors to bring pleasure but are still unhappy. Others go through hell by sheer lack, such as the homeless. Even then, a homeless person may experience a greater sense of heaven within than some others although as far as I see it sleeping outside in winter must be horrendous.

I guess the point I am making is that 'heaven' is an inner experience. There is no easy way to get to that. Pleasures and even antidepressants can lessen the experience of suffering but probably the spiritual teachers can lead the way to heaven within.But even this is not simplistic as our own fears and struggles can blind us when reading sacred literature.

Of course there are mind altering drugs, which can bring one to hell or heaven. But this was viewed by Rudolph Otto as profane rather than sacred mysticism.

I am sorry that I am not giving you any easy aid to the problem of monotony. All I can say is that it is possible that we may go through hell before heaven. Or, perhaps you have not been to hell, but whatever heaven is about somehow gaining access to higher states of consciousness pointed to by the mystics and, as their experiences show, this can be in life rather than after death.

Yes, I like the song Eve of Destruction, as well as Bob Dylan, and the whole 60s music scene is very inspiring. Dark times give rise to creativity. While I do still find new music I like, there has not been much innovation since 2000. Maybe the dark times will herald a new youth subculture equivalent to flower power, punk, goth etc.

I listened to The Pillows and really liked the song. I googled them and they were around in 1989. My favourite band as a teenager was The Alarm, but I listen to all kinds of alternative rock and music as well as philosophy can be a powerful agent for inspiration for social change. Actually, I am a bit psychedelic and really like The Flaming Lips. I also recommend The The's album Mind Bomb.

I am getting a bit carried away from philosophy, but perhaps I can be forgiven because I began this thread. We need inspiration to avoid getting depressed by the whole cultural collapse.

I do think the Covid_19 situation could be a possible source of transformation. In fact, this is my biggest hope.

I think it could go either way, negatively or positively. We are at a critical juncture and I suppose that is why I raise questions.

I am struggling to grapple with my daily quest, trying to transform the negative into the positive. This same personal alchemical healing quest may be what is needed on a global level.

Perhaps the Covid_19 situation is the wake up call we all needed to question and transform our whole approach to life.

It sounds really scary, like the mythical(? ) fall of Atlantis. Surely, there is a possible way forward for humanity to go forward without collapse and I wonder if the philosophers can be the saviours, instead of leaving this to the religious and political leaders.
A lot of the readers of this site may see me as a fool for getting into such discussion rather than the the more clever analytical debates. Maybe I am a fool but I am inclined to think that a back to basics concern about where humanity is going should be on the philosophical agenda.

While I am not someone who likes spending life mostly on digital devices I feel that having a kindle has been revolutionary for my reading life.

During the past 5 years I have been able to access so many books than ever before, although I am aware that it is so easy to get hold of them on Amazon. But I have got most of the fiction classics and many philosophy classics free and have got many books which have not been made into paper books. I have about 750 books on my kindle and if I go away somewhere I can take this whole library with me.

But I have not abandoned paper books. I probably have about 150 after getting rid of about 300 to charity shops. It is still nice to hold a paper book and have a nice bookmark. I like to take a book out with me and stay out reading it from cover to cover, even if this means coming home after midnight. Flatmates are curious where I have been and a bit disappointed to know that my date was with a book.

Of course, the worst impact of ebooks is that it has affected the bookshops. Like the record shops so many have had to close down( I still prefer a physical music collection to an Ipod or streaming).

It also affects writing directly. It is so much easier to write a book and publish it oneself. This is good but it does mean that some of the books which are available are not that great, especially fiction. But I think that it is a good thing that it is easier to create books because it cuts out a lot of the bureaucracy which writers face.

it is worrying that philosophers are disinterested in such developments as the major hydrogen bombs.

In the past, there was a lot of dialogue between philosophers and leaders about such issues. In particular, Bertrand Russell played a key role in the CND movement.

[reply="philosophience wordpress com;d9368"
I just thought that I would add that I do think people are becoming morally superior in this time of Covid_19 and it is bringing out the worst prejudices against certain Chinese and Asians.

It can be hard if people don't follow the guidelines but I wonder whether some of the guidelines are even correct. Some of the people who say they don't care may just be overwhelmed because we are not used to this whole problem.

It is also hard to get the right balance, because otherwise we may all get obsessive compulsive disorder. It is also possible that susceptibility to Covid_19 may also be related to one's current immune system, so it is all complicated.

I approach the whole problem of judgement of others based on the psychoanalytic idea of projection, based on the ideas of Melanie Klein.We see faults in others and focus on theirs rather than acknowledging our own inadequacies.

There is also a passage in the Bible a long that line, but I haven't read the Bible in years so I would not be able to quote it. However, religious believers can be the most judgemental when they judge others according to a set of rules, although Jesus criticised the Pharisees for doing that. So, hopefully not all religious believers are completely judgemental.

But for all people it is hard to avoid all judgemental views, such as those against rapists and murderers. I have worked in forensic psychiatry and actually I did not have problems working with such people, but some colleagues found it hard not to be judgemental. Some also admitted being judgemental of people with drug and alcohol problems, but of course admitting judgemental beliefs is the starting point for confronting the attitude.

I think being in touch with the shadow, as Jung describes it, is central. I struggled with guilt associated with the Catholic ideas I was brought up with and this led me to work with my own shadow. But acknowledging the dark side in oneself is a difficult process. But the more aware we are of our darkest motives the more compassionate we can become.

As mortals, we cannot understand the God force. If anything, seeing it as a source, is one way of seeing the divine. I find Fritjof Capra's book God and the New Physics very helpful.
As far as the 'simpleton' part, the problem may really be about how we expect God to behave, especially if we perceive God as wholly God. What about the shadow side of God? This matter is dealt with in depth in Jung's book Answer to Job.

I was not actually implying that the death rate was so high that the whole of civilisation was going to be wiped out, or that being asked to stay at home in itself would be a source of collapse in itself. But I am wondering about the changes because although 'collapse' was perhaps an over dramatic word I do believe that previous pandemics probably did have far reaching effects, and the virus is not over yet.

In a way, there had already been major changes in the last few years, such as more and more being done online. Major retail chains were beginning to collapse for many years now. If anything the lockdown has probably just speeded this process.

But I do think that there is a lot more going on. Poverty is likely to be a major part of it. When people become too poor some probably won't be able to afford any devices to go online. If universities did only manage to operate online it is questionable whether people would choose to join in that way because they pay for the experience of university life and not just a degree.

But I think the subtle change is people's whole perception, especially fear and anger. I am certainly hoping that life as we know it doesn't change completely but it has occurred to me that tensions could lead to war between nations.

However, just one thing I will stress is that I was not implying that the pandemic alone could trigger a cultural collapse. But if anything I should be pleased by some reassurance that we are not on the verge of collapse, because that is my fear.

,
Perhaps we have a tower of Babel and not enough dialogue between cultures in the quest for what is important. Perhaps, greater engagement between nations and exposition of such philosophies would enable the most expansive worldperspectives to develop.

Philosophy does not have to be about arguments always but about drawing out what lines of thought work, with a view to some kind of synthesis. But of course that is my view of a purpose of philosophy and others may see the purpose of the quest differently, with valid reasons.

Of course I realise that there have been times of large deaths in former ages but this is the biggest we have known in our lives, and I think it is likely to have the impact of both World Wars.

The second world war heralded dramatic changes in thinking. The reason why I think this is an issue for philosophy is that it may be that this is an arena for deconstruction and reconstruction of values. Most of all , I believe that philosophers need to be involved in debates about who we are and where we are going.

Independent of the world pandemic, there are questions about ecology and the environment and surely these should be at the forefront of philosophical agendas. Surely, while philosophy is involved in looking at beliefs and values it cannot be in ivory tower blockaded from the pressing concerns facing humanity.

I am not in any disagreement with you. My only contentioun would be that as philosophers we need to write as clearly as possible, in order for truths to be conveyed, free of jargon as possible, in order for philosophy to aid understanding of life rather than make it even more confusing than it is.

We have been living in postmodern times. What happens now? The end of belief as we know it, or the evolution of a new way of looking at things as we know it? The future is in our hands, and perhaps the philosophers will determine the future, amidst the shouts of fear and despair. It may be up to us to create a new vision of hope.

Yes, philosophy can be so therapeutic, better than psychotherapy perhaps. I have even heard of a school of therapy based on philosophy. Surely, life understanding goes beyond the mundane aspects of childhood. Of course all experiences are important but psychoanalysis sometimes gets stuck in the past and cognitive behavioral therapy in the present. The transpersonal therapists are more engaged with philosophy and this may be a bridge between psychology and philosophy which would be meaningful for so many who lack a helpful structure for understanding their lives.

Dolphin have profound awareness. In spite of my own wordy responses, and complaints of difficulties about writing on a phone, I the first person to admit to the limitations of words and language, a mystic truth.


Perhaps, the dolphins engage in sophisticated philosophical debate. Unfortunately, for the present time I am stuck mostly in a verbal mode wondering about the purpose of philosophy in a strange historical debate, wondering about the foundations of everything we have hitherto taken for granted. Will we collapse amidst a myriad of chaos, or can the philospher kings lead the way forward as illusions of cultural progress shatter before our eyes?

Sorry if my previous response had typing errors, but it is hard writing properly on a telephone and perhaps others using computers can bear with this. In this context, my own frustration with web links can possibly be understood more clearly and appreciated. I don't suppose that I am the only person using the site on a phone.

My phone could not key into the link you provided. Surely, philosophy can be about words and not just yet another aspect of techno glamour.
What I love about this site is about communication in words. Could you have not this? The world is already abounding in web links Perhaps philosophy will only survive if it can engage in dialogue with writers fully, rather than just become links the glamour of techno sources.

I like your reply above and I hope a lot of people read it as it gives plenty of scope for thought.

I
It is inevitable that we are constrained by material factors, especially survival as The Mad Fool has pointed out, but this is not everything. If it was, why are we all logging into this website rather other ones.

I just wish to challenge everyone to think as deeply as possible. In doing so, we may know ourselves more thoroughly. I have to admit that I sometimes respond to threads quickly. In some ways sponanteinty is good but I think there is a deeper level of reflection and questioning which sometimes gets lost in dialogues on this site.

I am not saying that philosophy should not be fun but I just think it requires us to step back and look within ourselves as we look at the issues and philosophers from the past and our current time. In doing so, we may create new pathways for ourselves and thinkers of future generations.

I like the idea of dedication to philosophy as a full time pursuit. I think I did really begin with that aim but got pushed away due to pressures from family and friends.

Material pursuits do get in the way, especially the two you identified: survival and finding a mate. Even though you said that you would like to find a girl you maybe lucky that you didn't because you might not have ended up as free to pursue philosophy. The girl and children may have been making so much demands for time and money.

I have got to the point where I do wish to pursue philosophy and the inner life, alongside art and writing, but it is not easy. As I have said on a couple of threads I have had to move a couple of times recently but I am determined to follow my inner daimon. I am sure that I will encounter many obstacles.

I think the main obstacle is the prejudice against philosophy and the inner life. I did train as a psychiatric nurse and my whole motivation was about the understanding and mastering of inner life. At first, I encountered professionals who empathise or sympathised with my aims. However, gradually the whole approach has become based on more materialistic aims. I used to have philosophical conversations with my patients and I even got told off by managers, who regarded this as a waste of time. I used to be told things like I would be better getting the patients involved in cleaning duties.

But I have got to the point where I don't think I can or wish to be a slave to the system any longer. I don't believe it was the life I ever intended. B

Perhaps education is better in America than in England. On various courses I have done, especially recent short courses, I have found that that tutors have been remote, with the tutors being more concerned about their own research reputation.
I do really feel that the introduction into philosophy on my Social Ethics course has been profound in many ways. So, maybe when I speak of not helping in a career pathway, the problem might not be the course in itself but the way in which certain courses are perceived by employers. Sadly, the Social Ethics course has been discontinued in England and I don't think there is another course of its kind.
I wonder whether I would have been better or worse if I had studied Philosophy rather than Social Ethics, because it blended philosophy with the social sciences and did focus primarily on ethics. In some senses I think that the application of philosophy avoids too much detachment from daily life but I do wonder if I would have achieved a fuller overview of the whole picture of philosophy if the inclusion of other disciplines had not been so strong.
Generally, from an interest in academic philosophy and the study of life itself, I think that initial courses are a good starting point but we also have to follow our own pathways in reading and thinking. As far as mentors go, it is good to have tutors as mentors but sometimes we may meet our best mentors in the most unexpected places.

Please see the response I just wrote, but I sent it as a reply to another writer rather than you who asked the question.

I think philosophy can be self-taught really because there is so much literature available, ranging from introductions to books by the importance authors.
Part of the reason I recommend self-study is that I did study it to a large extent as my first degree, which was Social Ethics. After A levels it seemed exciting and I did really enjoy it. But I did regret it because it did not enable me to get a job. I did a further Mphil focusing on Jung's psychology and the problem of evil and ended up with an even more esoteric CV. I don't really know what I thought I would do after my studies but I do think that if I could go back I would have studied more with a view to a career and have kept my interest in philosophy as a part time, personal interest instead.
Of course, everyone is different and perhaps studying philosophy could lead to becoming a lecturer or even a professor. I would not have the confidence to stand up in front of a class full of students.
As it is, having done voluntary work and training to work I ended up working and losing my job in May. So, I am right back where I started really and I have many years for which I am expected to work.
But in the current employment crisis it is hard to know whether formal education should be more or less career orientated or less so. But it will also be interesting to see what effect the turmoil and increasing poverty for many will have on philosophy as an academic discipline.

I meet up with you on different threads, but yes maybe I have got to accept impermanence. Sometimes it seems everything is stagnant and then changes come so suddenly that it is overwhelming, making it hard not to fall apart.
Generally, I feel on a karmic rollercoaster. In particular, what I spoke about in my answer to the response I made to your porter post started to happen today, my second move during the pandemic into another shared household. Meeting a new group of strangers and being told their truths? I was rather stunned when my landlord told me at 4.30 today that I needed to move all my belongings today. I am still arranging transport today, but moving does make me question my attachment to material belongings as I gather my piles of CDs and books.
Anyway, the philosophical point of my reply is that I do genuinely believe in lessons of life and possibly karma. For all my adult life, I do find that the events of my life and their timing, including meeting certain people, have never been pure coincidence. Of course this is a subjective argument, which is hard to explain on a website discussion but I do think it has some bearing on the issue of the second noble truth.
My argument is that unfortunately desire is often met with a lot more suffering than pleasure alot of the time, but perhaps this is part of the learning curve towards an understanding of impermanence.

I have been reading this thread and your one on whether Buddhism is a philosophy or religion. I do have sympathy with the whole approach to life whichever way it is perceived.
I do try to practice meditation, although do it in my own fabricated manner. I often play dance music, hopefully the more spiritual rather than bodily sort, on my headphones. I find this does work as meditation but overcoming desire is so difficult.
I certainly do not have a problem of gross desire such as wishing to kill etc but It is so hard to overcome desire while in a body, even if it is for the most mundane, such as the next cup of coffee, meal, new books and music or meeting friends. Surely, seeking pleasure is at the core of our nature and if we became that detached we might have become robots.

If only it was perfect. I wrestle on a day to day basis about how to live my life without hurting my mother's feelings because she is elderly.
There are so many dimensions to the lying and honesty debate and probably most of us have a a complex mixture of self interest and higher motives, and at best, awareness of motives will lead to being honest with oneself.

Hopefully, persuasion should not be a hollow act but one of true learning, but in this chaotic age, with a multitude of beliefs, the wisest of our time can can lead pathways. Ultimately, it might not be about persuasion to definite belief, but if nothing else, may be about enabling us to think for ourselves, in the spirit of Socrates' call for an examined life.

Having written this response I am aware that there are all kinds of lies and deceptions going on at a social and political level. This is probably a slightly different debate but it may be interrelated in some strange way, when historians review the lives of our political leaders, their autobiographical tuths and their agendas, even in the time of Covid_19 and the current turmoil.

It is also important to know when uncovering brutal truths what ends we are serving, truth, the feeling of others or ourselves? Perhaps, then, is the time for the brutal truths, as we perceive them.
Hopefully our lives and those of others are not shrouded in lies altogether and if they really are what has led to the lies?
It is also difficult talking abstractly, because although the example of lying to a dying relative opened up a discussion all facets of personal and social deception have there only intricacies.
As far as the opening discussion was concerned, how much lying and self'disclosure in personal life was the starting point at least.
This starting point is good though, because how we approach issues in our life can be broadened to a wider ethical sphere. If we can be aware of the logic of our personal lives it may give us the logic to apply to social and political dilemmas, But this is only if we can look at each issue in itself without unhelpful generalisations.

The militant truth tellers can definitely be obnoxious and the worst to have involved in complex philosophical discussions, They often have such limited vision, distorting and curbing all genuine constructions and renditions of truth, which is about seeing beyond the facade of the limits of our own personal experience.

I thought that Philosophm' s response was an exaggerated response. My own mention of my father's mention of buying a place into heaven is in the context of my own questioning of Catholicism which I shielded, partly because I did not need at a time of deep personal exploration.
I am neither a complete atheist or believer in an afterlife and I neither conceal or deny this but just approach others spontaneously, but with regard to their beliefs.
I think that you have created an interesting area of debate and you may have paved the way for all kinds of exciting possibilities for discussion.

In my comment about saying nothing in precarious situations, I am not suggesting that we stand back like robots. Sometimes, empathy with the spirit of distress or hope can be communicated non verbally or otherwise.
I could not possibly think that you really envision the atheist portraying his beliefs to a fantasised afterlife family reunion to a parent as they are about to die. Likewise, a pretence of belief in the afterlife by the atheist would most likely be a hollow sham, and probably appear fake and unconsoling.

Actually, my dad, before he died used to speak of buying a ticket into heaven. What could I say? Sometimes, when not knowing what to say in precarious situations, the best solution might be to say nothing.

How much do we disclose about ourselves and how much do others really wish to know? I frequently err on the side of not enough or too much. As someone with complex LGBTIQ issues I frequently stumble more when people expect us to be able to explain all by a tap of the switch on digital technology.
In daily life I have often been extremely honest about so many things and people have used my self- disclosed truths against me to their own ends.
What are the facts and truths about our own lives. How much is distortion of our own making or by what is projected onto us by others with their own truths and lies. Others perceived honest opinions can be the most condemning if we do not see that they perceive and judge to their own advantage.
Personal truth is a journey and while it is important to cast out self-deception, surely it is better for each individual to be tell his or own mythic story, choosing what facts to disclose and wish to omit in the spirit of creativity and truth, allowing others the freedom to do the same. Sometimes fiction is a the most free medium as it allows juxtaposition which tells the main truth which can be hidden amidst the trivia and chaos of fabrication and fact.

I agree with you that the best starting point in philosophical debate and persuasion is understanding another's state of mind and their knowledge.
So much comes down to the other's psychology. Sometimes it can seem like a lost battle if the person wishes to hold onto beliefs which they believe serve them well, including fixed ideas stemming from religious belief or ideas they were brought up to believe. In particular, sometimes arguing against various prejudices can be laborious. I have heard my mum trying to argue against racism with some of her friends, as they sit there not wanting to know.
When we are trying to give knowledge based food for questioning and reflection, it is also worth suggesting benefits of rethinking ideas. Also, understanding the other's perspective fully including the positives of the view leads to a deeper engagement.
Also, it is worth examining why we wish to challenge others' ideas in the first place, so that it does not become a mere exercise to blot out one's own uncertainty or a game about winning an argument.

Perhaps, in a sense, when the philosophers stand naked rather than veiled in layers of clothing they will come closer to levels of thought and truths which are not seen usually. It may make themselves and others feel uncomfortable but we may learn from lack of comfort. The harshest experiences can teach us so much, so perhaps we need to stand naked in the cold of winter.

Truth should not be limited to science. The arts are extremely important too, for capturing mythic and psychological truth. All thef fields of thought and the chorus of authors need to be embraced as raw source material for the philosophers.

I am not wishing to interrupt any discussion which is ongoing and would like to see it opened up.
I wonder if clothes are layers upon structures. Perhaps philosophers have clothes, which are the words and concepts they use to hide the naked materials of questions about the human condition.