It is interesting that you argued for that point of view because in forum discussion it often seems that people use logic as some kind of dogma. Human beings are more than logical robots, with emotions and sensitivity. Reducing so much to simple formulas seem so flat and the main threads which seem to be running at present on 'truth' seem to be doing that. I tried reading them and felt that the people were on an entirely different philosophy wavelength to me.

Each of us does come from a different angle and sometimes it does seem like others are going into meaningless tangents, or different languages, a bit like the Biblical 'Tower of Babel'. I will have a look at your threads because they may have been before I joined, or it can be that there are so many threads being started that it is hard to read them all.

In thinking about your query of my belief that ethics runs 'alongside our rational understanding of the world', I am recalling a book which I read a few years ago, 'Depth psychology and the New Ethic',by Erich Neumann. He argues that ethics of the past was too based on logic and that in life one needs to incorporate the potential ripple unconscious aspects of behaviour and words. Of course, many people don't believe in an actual 'unconscious' and this is not necessary here. That is because he is simply speaking of potential effects beyond the most tangible ones.

This would include repercussions of ideas. For example, people may be affected by advertising subtlety. I don't mean simply about buying specific items but in the whole subtext of values. I think that this also links with Baudrillard's emphasis on ideas and values conveyed by images in society. This applies to all ideas, including political and religious ones, with the repercussions having ripple effects on the subconscious mind of individuals.

What I mean is that thinking of the ethical aspects of philosophy, as consequences in real life, is important. It runs alongside understanding of ideas as explanations for the nature of causation and processes.

You didn't tell me which sentence. I don't wish to write word salad and I just like to juggle ideas as a way of thinking, almost like lateral thinking. But I didn't sleep last night at all, so it may be best if I take a break and go out for a bit.

The insidious aspects of philosophy may be more critical than mere names studying it. The analysis of ideas in culture in general may be one way that ethics can come into consideration of ideas. Politics is a serious business of shaping life and even though in the past thinkers like Nietzsche and Marx were important it doesn't seem that philosophy is given enough consideration.

It is a question of whether intelligence is an upgrade or a downgrade in the sense of civilisation has been achieved. However, human beings have created so much destruction and plundered the planet rather than acting as stewards of the natural world.

Having just mentioned ideas leading to suicide has led me to think how I developed a grudge against St Paul of the Bible. That is because a friend of mine, at age 19, became unwell mentally and killed himself. That was after going to an evangelical meeting and on the last time I ever saw him before the incident he was in a state over his reading of Paul's Biblical writings.

Actually, this was the point when I first questioned the Christian teachings which I had grown up with. The other side to the issue is the way in which Christianity may have been used negatively, such as in religious wars. Some argue that there is a big difference between Jesus as a teacher and what may have been done in the name of Christianity through history.

It is the problem which faces anyone who writes that they cannot predict what will be done with their work. It is a bit like music. There is always the risk that someone at some stage will name a song which made them feel suicidal or lead them to self harm. Of course, it may be partly about projection and people latching onto certain ideas sometimes though rather than simply about the actual ideas and those who developed them.

Yes, we don't want the philosophers' writings to be marked with red, yellow and green labels. It is handy when food is marked with these for healthy eating. However, it would be worse than needing ID to buy certain items if under 26.

I guess that thinking about the impact of ideas and philosophy is part of the same process as evaluating truth of ideas rationally, as the ethical dimension.

I don't have the books I read on the topic of Jung and antisemitism but that is the view some writers take of him. That is partly based on his relationship with Freud but also on some generalised remarks he made comparing racial groups. In addition he was working in Germany at the time of the Nazi's, gave some therapy and failed to speak out against the atrocities of Nazism at the time. There is some indication that he thought about this later and that his discussion of the shadow side in 'Answer to Job' was partly based on reflection about this.

Some argue that Jung's work should be discredited on account of this, while others see this as a weakness but see the other aspects of his work for what it offers. It is a bit like many of the historical philosophers being sexist. However, if Jung was writing what he wrote, comparing national groups it may be that he would be joining the thread of the banned members.

When you speak of different philosophies being like different locations for viewing objects, it may be like the many different angles or perspectives of perception. It is as if each person at any given moment is like one of the infinite aspects of the multiverse.

I definitely am not in favour of censorship. The issue of philosophy being used in a negative way was simply something which I was thinking about the other day. I am sure that people are better with philosophy than without it. In my case, the biggest problem is that I overthink but it may be better than too little thinking, although overthinking can be a recipe for insomnia.

When I am speaking of the question of 'dangerous' ideas, like the Nazi's on one hand and the question of knowledge as questionable I am probably referring to conflicts in assumptions which have appeared historically. These have been tensions arising at different juncture and are connected to a mixture of fear and changing knowledge, especially in the rise of scientific discovery.

Some of the tensions may be due to the interplay within science and religion. This may have been based on the rise of humanism. Sometimes people speak of humanism as if it is identical with secular humanism. It is not as simple because it goes much further back and was interconnected to a lot of debate which emerged linked to theism and atheism, as well as agnosticism. There was also the conflict between rationalism, which was emerging in science and the romantic movement, from which Nietzsche's thinking stems.

The Nazi movement was connected to the development of ideas within Germany which may have been more related to cultural tensions, especially between Germans and Jews. It is likely that this provided a ground from which certain ideas could have been grasped in support. Hitler was influenced by theosophy and, Jung, who had an interest in the esoteric also wrote some ideas which adopted the view of the superiority of the German race. His own disagreement with Freud was also relevant in the context of the friction between Jews and Germans. Even though Hitler is the figurehead of this, the tension was about implicit cultural war

Also, the emphasis on the distinction between the right and left path is probably related to the political aspects of esotericism. Certain ideas may have been in the hands of the privileged elite and in the hands of organisations such as the Rosrucians. In addition, the emphasis on development of one's potential in esoteric thought may have been discouraged because it goes beyond the following of groupthink and is about exploration.

When I speak of the various 'dangers' it is in the context of many human beings having access to so many ideas so easily. If anything, the biggest danger may be one of confusion. In addition, one's own psychological state may come into play. For example, when I got particularly depressed by nihilism it was in the time of lockdown. So, it is not just about ideas 'out there' but in relation to one's own experience and circumstances.

As facts are not always straightforward at all it seems to make sense that some are drawn to different philosophies. It is likely that there is selective bias and people seeing what they wish to see. Perhaps, it is why philosophy seems to be so much of an area for heated debate, with the emotional side involved in the process of logic itself. The emotional aspects beyond logic may also explain why some people change and modify their ideas and perspective through life rather than simply on the basis of rational analysis.

I find it hard to make up my mind on so many ideas, as well as decisions, and it can be difficult when so much time is spent ruminating. I definitely agree that different people are drawn to different philosophies. Part of that is based on psychological issues, but there is the issue whether any philosophies are dangerous intrinsically or not. It is likely that there is a clear subjective aspect, just like with music taste. I do find that nihilism leads me to feel depressed, but I know that there are some who are happy nihilists.

I definitely agree with philosophies as 'a way of life', including the development of habits or as a basis for practice in life. That seems to make them more than abstract principles. It may be that dogmas are a main source of ideas being treated too concretely and without careful examination of their usefulness in life which can be a basis for them being turned into ideologies.

It is probably not possible to separate the 'truth' of ideas from their effects completely. It may be that people need to see some benefits to some kind of belief to pursue it at all. It is just that some ideas may reap more benefits than others and it may not be apparent immediately but seen more clearly retrospectively, including learning from mistakes.

While ideas are needed to be evaluated on the basis of 'truth', to see this as the only matter seems onesided. I am not saying that it is beneficial to be happily deluded or for people to believe lives. It would be ridiculous to go that far, but I am suggesting that some concern or attention should be paid to the effects and repercussions of the impact of ideas on psychological and social aspects of life.

I am glad that some people are working on this area Even though it may be regarded as of lesser importance than 'truth', I am sure it has some value for consideration because ideas have profound effects in life beyond whether they are right or wrong logically.

That is the complexity of it and I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy. I am not trying to exaggerate, but the emphasis on science, especially in understanding consciousness, almost seems to regard philosophy like an appendix, as if it is some outdated add on aspect to consciousness. It is as if thought itself is not seen as the basis, even though concepts are based on ideas, which cannot be reduced to matter.

That's fine, because the thread which I wrote a long while ago popped up out of the blue again. Perhaps, it is time for me to explore new and original ideas...Keep well, and try not to overthink, because that may be what I do.

Best wishes,
Jack

It may go back to the issue of the red zones or 'philosophical dangers'. The new may be forbidden territory and feared. On the hand, it may be about exploration and experimentation. Some ideas may be found accidentally and in wandering into uncharted ideas, even to the point of getting lost, or what my mother accused me of, 'going off the planet.' However, if one stays safe in the boxes of tradition what is the scope for innovation and discovery?

As far as I see it, so many do try to look to neuroscience, as if it is 'chocolate frosting'. It does raise big questions about causation. Some may get carried away with the novelty of ideas to thre point where it glosses over the surface so much. The understanding may require greater analysis and that may be where philosophy will remain important in sifting through and making sense of it all, as an elimination of potential nonsense.

The question may be what role do neurons play? I am sure that it is significant, but what is the relationship between neuroscience and ideas. What is intuition and imagination and can they be traced back to the physical wiring of the brain and the human imagination?

It may be about brainstorming and finding new ways of focusing, and even alternative ways of seeing and perception. The lens through which we see may change on account of the ideas which are developed. The philosophy of idealism or realism, for example, may alter everything just as the camera did. So, both thought and the sensory basis of perception may alter the way in which all aspects of life are observed or understood conceptually.

I am afraid that the accounts which I have read of Nietzsche's death have been blurry. I have been left with a muddle of his death as involving organic factors and the existential struggle. The complex tension of this may apply to the life struggle of Nietsche, but also be relevant to that of human beings, but as subjects struggling with suffering, as sentient beings grappling with meaning and ideas.

The idea of multiple discovery, as shown in the link is important because it may be that the truly important ideas arise in the understanding of many disciplines rather than any one alone. This may be in connection with systemic understanding, even if a 'theory of everything'. is not possible.

The idea of reasons is connected to the development of language. It is the basis for logic and concepts. Rationality and reasoning are done on that basis but that doesn't mean that other aspects, such emotions don't come in as well, and irrationality. It is one thing to be able to find reasons and that is a starting point for philosophy and another to follow them always. It may be easier to come up with the a posteri or a priori aspects of reason than to live according to Kant's moral system. So, human beings are rational but even then human reason is limited and it probably requires a lot of discipline to develop reason to its furthest possibilities.

I think that your post asks some important questions about the nature of human beings reflecting on understanding it all. In particular, 'What hangs on the existence or non-existence of God' It is not easy to answer and it may be more rhetorical rather than anything else. However; it was the sort of way which I was thinking when I wrote the thread outpost. It is more about what was signified in the emergence of the idea of God in human consciousness.

Even though it is slightly aside from most discussions about the existence of God, one book which I think is important in connection with the development of ideas about gods or God is Julian Jaynes' 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind'. That is because Jaynes looks at the evolution of thought in human culture. He sees the development of picture representations and language through the form of song and poetry initially. He also sees the way in which human beings in ancient times had a less clear distinction between inner and outer reality. Thoughts were projected outside as coming from gods, and Jaynes sees Moses receiving the ten commandments in this way.

Human understanding is so different from ancient times and, generally, belief in God is used as a source for rational explanations. This goes back to Aristotle's idea of God as the initial form of causation. The idea of both cause as well as the way of understanding reality, including the development of differentiation of subjective and objective realms may be important in thinking about the initial basis for belief in higher beings or 'the divine' emerged in human understanding.

When I spoke of shallow atheism, I was referring to scientism and materialistic determinism.

I am sure that if I had not been surrounded by so many people who come from religious backgrounds I would not have thought about the issue of God like I do. I remember when I went to primary school there were not that many other religious children. Some religious teachings were expressed, in school assemblies mainly, but it was in the background. I remember when they knew that I went to church and catechism classes they often couldn't relate to it. At age 12 I chose to go to a Catholic school and I had been confirmed as a Catholic at age 11, having had my first 'holy communion' at age 7.

So,it is probably not surprising that when I got to doing later studies that I ended up with clashes of ideas. I really did struggle making sense of it all and I had friends who developed religious psychoses. Strangely, with a couple of friends who I am still in touch with, when they are well they do not question religion philosophically. I know one who believes in the literal story in Genesis, including a 7 day creation and an actual person called Adam and Eve. I stopped thinking that while I was still at school.

Even in the hospital where I worked with so many African Christians, there were many patients being admitted with religious psychoses. Somehow, the extent of ideas about God, heaven and hell do have far reaching effects on the development of core beliefs. I do know a couple of people who grew up in schools where philosophy was taught, and not just religious studies and these couple of people are theists. Even though there is a certain move towards secular society there are very strong religious systems of ideas. It is hard to know what direction people will go in the future because religion and the idea of God is so strong in captivating and affecting human understanding.

Your own development of ideas, including pantheism, is interesting in the sense that it goes beyond the shallow aspects of atheism. Both theism and atheism can be fairly shallow, backed up with very little sound logic. In some ways, some accounts of Buddhist metaphysics make a lot of sense to me as being neither based on ideas of an actual God or scientific materialism. However, I do understand there to be some debate between idealism and materialism.

My own mother died last September and was extremely religious right until the end, although she was so extremely afraid to die. When I told her about a thread on the forum about religion she said that she didn't know that philosophy included thinking about religion at all.

Most of my friends in real life are theists. One gets cross with me for even raising any questions about the existence of God, as if it is as obvious that God exists as the world is round. Some of my friendships go back to when I was a teenager and, at that stage, I was far more of a devout believer than they were. I even have one friend who became a Jehovah's Witnesses and a couple of Muslim friends. I do have one friend who is an atheist and I found talking to him helpful as a balance with having so many friends who are Catholic or Christian.

When I was working in mental health care I was often surrounded by African Christians and they really were inclined to preach. I found it just too much and really don't like it when people begin preaching because it seems so authoritarian. Really, I do find that the discussions on religion on this site useful in general but there are times when there are just too many 'God' threads dancing around on the front page.

When you speak of Zeus and Shiva, they are images of what greater reality may exist. From my reading of Jung I came to see the Judaeo- Christian picture developed in the Bible as an image. My mother told me how at times she used to imagine God the father as the old man and Jesus as the young man.

Ultimately, it is about representations. There is the question as to whether God created human beings in his own images or whether humans created God in their own image. In this way, it is like the relationship between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Some people have argued that God is like a person. The OT image of Jahweh was as a person, and wrathful, with Jesus being the figurehead of compassion.In a lot of ways it as of the gods or God is a projection of human understanding and changes. Now, it may be that science has taken over where religion left off. The only thing which has to be remembered is that even science is models, and like the images arising in religious perspectives we are still left with models and representations as approximations.

The issue of guilt is central to Christianity, especially with the idea of original sin. I definitely struggled with guilt at times, but I am not sure that guilt is the main problem in life and wonder if as Schopenhauer and Buddhists argue that the hardest aspect of life is suffering.

I can remember thinking some time just over a year ago when I was using the forum, why are there so many threads looking at the existence of God. I was reflecting that it was a matter of choice whether people choose to believe that there is some kind of higher force in the cosmos. I was thinking how futile the arguments for and against it. I tried to pay less attention to the threads about God. However, I have to admit that it does still niggle in the back of mind as one of the toughest questions. If anything, I do query why people get fierce arguing for and against God when it is difficult to prove one way or not. But, it is probably because it is an issue which is emotional, because it is central and some see clear reasons to believe in God and others for seeing it as so destructive. I am happy to hear both sides and I am more inclined to have battles in my own mind about the matter rather than with other people.

Religious beliefs can be used in all kinds of ways, especially politically. That realisation was a motivating factor which I found important for questioning theism. However, at the same time it is a little separate from the actual question of whether there is a God or not. I found Gnostic interpretations of Christianity more workable than the literal ones. I have come across Tillich, and Whitehead, as well and that kind of approach seems to make more sense. Generally, I don't consider myself as an actual theist, but I do find my ideas shift, especially in relation to whether there is some purpose behind the scenes. However, I am aware that it may be magical thinking.

I am probably more inclined to wonder about the possibility of God when things are going well for me and others than when everything is going wrong. However, I do still pray at times and have religious friends who often advise me to pray. My own kind of prayer is probably more a kind of silent meditation rather than the more conventional kind, like the ones recited out loud at church.

I definitely began with the perspective that God is 'truth'. I came from a Catholic background but with an open mindedness to other forms of Christianity initially. However, I began looking at other religions, especially Eastern ones and that was when it all became much more complicated. It was also when I saw some of the negative impacts of religious beliefs, especially guilt, and so many contradictions. Then, I found that I began deconstructing what had formerly appeared to be 'truth'.

I just wish to add that I am raising the debate over some analysis of the debate between theism and atheism. However, I do see it in the context of the wide range of philosophy perspectives historically and geographically. In this respect, I am raising the area between theism/ atheism, but also other possibilities, including pantheism and the various constructions of reality which may be developed.

I stayed out fairly late last night and wasn't lost. A friend who was trying to call me last night was extremely cross with me with me though and I hadn't taken my phone. I had not got lost like my Radcastle Station story. Meandering around has always been my tendency and getting lost at times seems symbolic in the quest for authenticity and in philosophy. I wonder if many other people get lost literally as well as in the confusion of philosophical uncertainty.