The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. It goes back to the idea of the 'examined life' of Socrates. There is the issue as to whether the lens of perception need to be clear as a basic prerequisite for clarity of thought? Or, do the wounded or traumatised philosophers go into a quest for self-awareness which is deeper in its pursuit? As for the actual aspects of living a solid sense of self may make living less complicated although it may be that fragility leads to a certain amount of innovation, possibility as ways of thinking about priorities, values and what is important.

My guess is that the fragility of self could go either way in leading to completely off-balance thinking and ways of thinking. It may be that being thrown off the tracks, or even falling apart, may lead to the wilderness. There may be chaos, and all kinds of attempts to find answers and solutions. It is a potential path for erroneous thinking but it may be a starting point for originality, spontaneity and authenticity. While it may be a pathway of hazards it may be a tightrope which once gone through may be about lived experience and creativity of thought as opposed to following convention, safety and the common place ideas and methods. In other words, it may lead away from the solutions of the herd to the primal creativity of philosophy.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity. A deflated or inflated sense of self may be deficits of fragility, which obscure a clear sense of who one is, as an aspect of personal identity, and trying to see one's role and existential existence in the wider social and cosmic sense. In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity.

There is a danger of summaries leading to overgeneralisations of ideas. There are intricate aspects of different systems or frameworks which may be glossed over in synthetic understanding and, for this reason, while comparisons of concepts may be useful that is not to the point where subtle differences and details are cast aside, because such details may be essential in getting a clear picture in the search for a general map for trying to navigate the various possibilities.

You have indeed captured the way in which the ideas of mind, soul, spirit and self are at the core of so many aspects of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion and the whole query of who am I? These concepts are involved in how we frame our own autobiographical sense of identity in relation to others and the wider scheme of existence. In previous worldviews, especially the religious ones people often saw themselves in relation to 'the divine'. In a more secular outlook, and one based on social sciences and psychology, there is far more of an emphasis on the intersubjective as opposed to the objective, as in the idea of any 'being' as a spiritual reality 'out there'.

This juxtaposition is captured in Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou', which contrasts the idea of 'thou' as being God, or the 'divine' with the focus being on other human beings. The sense of human identity may fluctuate according to how the ideas, such as mind, spirit, soul and self is concerned and whether we define ourselves by these terms. For example, it may be so different how one views one's being in the cosmos. It may be connected to a sense of the finite and the infinite. In particular, it could be asked to what extent is the mind finite or infinite?

If mind is seen in conjunction with the idea of soul or spirit it is more likely to be seen as something which transcends the body; the connection with self is far more based on the link between the physical seat of consciousness. In this way, the nature of identity and what it means to be a human person may be at stake in the usage of terms to describe the inner aspects of human identity.

I do agree with ego, psyche and heart being possible terms which could have been added to the list. The term ego is fairly ambiguous because it has different connotations in Freud's theory to the use in Eastern thinking. Psyche was used by Jung and in archetypal psychology. Heart is an interesting one because what it signifies is that consciousness is not located in the head alone as the exclusive source. It is most clearly recognized in the Eastern model of the chakra system.

To some extent the various terms are synonymons which depending on usage may be used to speak about the nature of inner experiences. I do like the term 'soul' to some extent although it may give rise to certain religious or spiritual connotations. The particular use of the term which I find helpful is in transpersonal philosophy and psychology, such as in the writing of Thomas More in, 'Care of the Soul' and 'The Dark Night of the Soul'. They are probably used in a spiritual as opposed to strictly religious sense. Mind you, in some ways the idea of soul could also be linked to the association of the genre of soul music, which I believe was based on it reaching the depths of emotional experiences.

Identity does seem to capture the whole spectrum of this as the autobiographical process of 'self'. Self is useful but it may appeal to the 'me' of egocentricism and in the context of individualism, and even the narcissistic aspect of seeing oneself in the mirror of others' perceptions in a social context.

Self has definitely taken over from soul and I can see why. Although I do appreciate the Zen Buddhist view which sees self as not being an entity in its own right, which was the criticism of mind and soul previously. And, yes, some have queried consciousness, such as Daniel Dennett's idea of 'consciousness is an illusion'. It does come down to the experiential beyond tangible physical reality' being hard to pin down exactly. However, even the clear distinction between 'mind' or 'consciousness' is hard to separate because they are interconnected, like two sides of a coin. Reflection itself may be the biggest evidence of consciousness or even 'mind' with 'self' possibly representing the interface between mind and body, especially in relation to emotions.

It is likely to be far to compare almost ANYTHING, but it is likely that in order to become a clear, independent thinker it is worth working out a framework of how various ideas overlap at all or work together or against one another. Otherwise, there is a danger of getting locked or trapped in the language of one set system of ideas. Of course, it is hard to do form a synthetic understanding and it is going to be limited because it is not possible to be aware of all the different ideas. It would require one to become a living encyclopedia, and the closest one gets to this is the computer knowledge of Wikipedia.

You are right to say that the concepts which I am talking about are non-physical which makes them fall more into the category of the philosophy of religion. It is quite something that after a tendency towards materialism in science that the quantum physicists' conception of reality has gone back to find what was missing in the Newtonian-Cartesian world view which had been the basis for the development of physicalist models.

I am definitely into combining and blending different ideas rather than simply differentiating and this is where it gets interesting. That is because sometimes ideas from different perspectives become dichotomized rather than seeing parallels. In that respect, a perennial philosophy, such as that of Aldous Huxley is able to see recurrent themes and traditions rather than seeing various viewpoints as clashing voices in the metaphorical Tower of Babel.

Yes, it is interesting to what purpose are such terms used. I started very much in the direction of the idea of the soul, in a religious background of Catholicism and a clear belief in spirits. I am not sure that the terms, especially soul are not useful in some ways but I probably think of them differently from initially. The idea of disembodied souls, or souls raises problems. So, it is all about the specific implications of the use of the terms.

One reference to the idea of the soul which I always liked was in the Spandau Ballet song, 'Gold', which had the line, 'Always believe in your soul, it's indestructible'. This way be true but more along the idea of the permeating lifeforce imminent in all living beings. In some ways it could signify immortality but whether that is a literal form of afterlife but as an underlying continuity of lifeforms.

Okay, I will look at the link. I did start Spinoza w couple of times and didn't get very far. I also did come across Hegel in relation to communism, and the political aspects of writers cannot be ignored. I went through a Kant phase a long time ago...

I definitely see the point of Wittgenstein's idea of the 'use' of meanings, which was why I didn't attempt to define the various words. It would have probably been pointless if in response to the thread people had tried to do so. I guess I was thinking of the complexity of the terms because I see them used in some overlapping and various ways. In particular, I am definitely questioning of the materialist approach of writers such as Dennett but have found reading on the Zen concept of 'no mind' to be interesting. I guess that the Zen approach seems deeper.

You are probably wise to be thematic in your reading and I have a bit of a chaotic mix and match approach which may end up being like putting a jigsaw puzzle together with the wrong pieces at times. Thanks for the recommendations and I will look up Mark Vernon because I haven't come across him. I started with Ninian Smart on comparative religion.

We may come from conflicting angles, because while I am not a theist I have an interest in comparative religion and points of view, in trying to understand evil and suffering. In particular, I am find the Buddhist perspective useful and the ideas of Carl Jung. I did study religious studies as my third topic on my undergraduate course. It involved looking at the problem of evil in Christianity. I find theology extremely different to read but read one writer, J Hick who wrote on the idea of evil in relation to human free will. Also, J Mackie wrote on the idea of omnipotence and evil. You may find these writers interesting to look at and critique.

Yes, putting these ideas together into one thread may not work, as they are such complex areas, involving so many different writers, with a need to understand the cultural contexts. I am extremely interested in the field of comparative religion and have found the ideas of Huston Smith useful. I am probably in the position of having read such a diverse selection of writers and trying to put it all together, with some important omissions, such as Spinoza.

I started this thread because in real life I don't really have anyone to discuss philosophy ideas with. I continue with my reading life and do use this forum to try to ground myself in the rational aspects of philosophy. You are most definitely correct to say that understanding of the contexts of the usage of them is important and that is why trying to define the ideas may be too simplistic. If anything, some may dismiss certain terms without entering into the philosophical imagination of the worldviews from which they emerged. If anything, I like to think and read broadly, so I have a big task whereas those who go for one specific perspective may have a narrower focus.

Yes, I think that both of us have got to this point before as your link shows and I am still in the position of having not read Spinoza, in order to get a full picture of property dualism, although I am aware that some have seen his writings as advocating pantheism. I am aware that you are not a materialist but, on the other hand, reject the idea of the supernatural. I am probably juggling this area, especially with my reading of Jung and the transpersonal.

Out of interest, what do you make of Hegel? I read his account of history and spirit and his particular phenomenology of mind about a year ago. It seems that he is a bit rejected in philosophy.

On the subject of what did I learn today, I spent a lot of time reading, including some philosophy essays, and, sometimes reading philosophy leads to philosophical knots. I was reading about the mind and body problem, including discussion of idealism. Sometimes, it seems that philosophy becomes too abstract and theoretical. I am extremely introspective and most definitely overthink.

It is a fine line between philosophy and overthinking, especially as so much of the issues explored on forum discussion, involve thinking about the concepts used in everyday language and I guess that my area of interest has always been the 'mind' and associated concepts and aspects of life. I am not sure what I have learned of significance today experientially or in terms of analytical thinking but there are a few hours left so there is a time for some learning experience yet. I don't know about your day and what you have learned about yourself, or beyond. Wonder is indeed limited but without it there may be no basis for speculation, in looking within or outside oneself.

Having read your outpost again here, I am wondering to what extent you see 'God' as a metaphorical construct for thinking about imaginary worlds. In that way, your perspective about 'toy worlds' for thinking about the nature of objective ways for viewing the wider perspective of moral evil. Or, I am I wrong in my interpretation of your critique and the thought experiment which you describe?

Do you not stop and wonder about these topics or concepts? Perhaps, I give my own 'soul' torture in doing so, but such ideas are a subtext underlying the whole debate about physicalism. In the sentence I have just written I am using the term 'soul' in a fairly loose, metaphorical way. However, at one point I used to believe in a literal 'soul' in the dualistic way of Descartes, especially in his distinct use of the concept 'I'.

Nowadays, having read in the direction of psychology and philosophers, especially Daniel Dennett, I can see that the ideas of soul and mind are open to question. However, as I am not convinced by physicalism because it is so reductive, even though empirical methods may be important it may give limited analysis. I know that you have considered the physicalist perspective seriously, but I would still question what it really amounts to other than linking the brain and consciousness. Therefore, my own query is whether the actual terms, especially 'mind' and 'soul' are worthy of consideration, as a basis for deeper philosophical analysis.

I am a bit surprised that your response suggests that we may be better off knowing little about such topics, and I am wondering why?

I appreciate your points and if anything think that the topic is too large to be simply a debating matter on the forum. Everyone has opinions and so many people have mental health issues. So, if your thread is to be of any quality it needs to embrace diverse ideas and angles. I only wrote a response because I have worked in mental health care, know people with enduring mental health problems and read on the various perspectives of therapy and healing.

It seems that you have a genuine interest but I am not sure that the thread will do the topic any justice, because there are so many aspects and it is a fairly sensitive topic, especially for internet discussion because it encompasses the political, the personal and psychological. If anything, it may have been better broken down into several questions and I may even write a question or two myself as a thread, but not today because I am extremely stressed out by my own life circumstances of moving. I do hope that your thread generates some worthwhile discussion though.

I am interested in critical thinking about psychiatry and the idea of 'healing the soul'. I have worked as a psychiatric nurse and, before that, I had read in the direction of the antipsychiatry movement. It is a very complex area because it involves politics and the mental wellbeing of individuals. The movement of antipsychiatry, as advocated by Thomas Szaz and RD Laing was rejected many, including both mental health service users and professionals for not looking at the real experience of mental health issues in enough depth.

Having known people who have had various mental health issues, the whole idea of mental health and its healing is important. Part of my own decision to train in mental health nursing was having known people with mental health issues, and knowing people who had committed suicide. There are so many people who are affected by mental health issues in society, its diagnosis and treatment and the various therapeutic options.

Different people find the various treatments and therapeutic options more helpful than others. For some, various medications seem to be helpful and may be complemented by other approaches, including the recovery model of identifying goals. For some, therapeutic interventions may be favoured, including the psychodynamic approaches or cognitive behavioral ones. In some instances, certain interventions may be seen as intrusive and disempowering, which is where the movement of antipsychiatry began.

During training in art psychotherapy, one approach which I came across in a one-day workshop was the transpersonal approach in psychotherapy. This may be a hidden gem, as it focuses on healing of the 'soul' and the idea of transformation. One of the writers includes Thomas More, who looks at care of the soul and the dark night of the soul. The scope of the transpersonal perspective may offer hope to some, but not necessarily all. It draws upon the idea of healing and wholeness and integration from psychology and Eastern thinking. It may be important for thinking in where antipsychiatry ended as a deadend for some, reducing it all to politics whereas some of the originators, including Laing, saw saw psychiatric issues as arising in the existential aspects of suffering and meaning.

There is even a song by U2, 'Two Hearts Beat As One', and the synchronisation in nature is a fairly familiar phenomena in nature. It might link in with Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance. I know that I tend to find myself having similar sleep and wake patterns with other people I am sharing a house with.

The idea of telepathy is also related to synchronisation possibly. The question may be to what extent a person actually tunes into another person's thoughts or whether there are parallels as a natural phenomenon? If two people are thinking similar thoughts it may be what causes what? Of course, with my own Jungian leaning, it leads back to the idea of synchronicity and the collective unconscious. It may be best thought about as a natural sympathy or rhythms in nature, just as there are seasons, night and day and patterns. It is natural not supernatural and 'mind' itself has rhythm, pattern and resonances which may go beyond the individual.

The nature of both friendship and romantic relationships are complex, especially in making them come together. Some manage to enable the two to work together. My parents did, and my mother married late after many previouz romances which did not work out because the friendships were not compatible. It does seem that many relationships break down for this reason. I have found making the two come together is extremely different, with romances being brief because there was not enough in common.

It can be hard to find a partner who is interested in philosophy and associated issues! It is easier to find friends who are. However, there is also the practical problems of living with another person. The only contexts in which I have shared a room with another have been difficult because I am poor sleeper, so I am likely to keep another awake through my restlessness. It can also be difficult to find a partner if one is a little eccentric or outside of the norm, but some who are still have the fortune of finding a fairly 'ideal' companion. It may not always be possible to find one's own Yoko Ono and even John Lennon had his first failed marriage.

Is it a plant? I thought that your avatar was a mixture of a hairy nipple gone wrong and a landscape. So much for miniature art in avatars, the postmodern, and what is aesthetically pleasing...?

The comparison between real lovers or friends is interesting. As an only child, I withdrew into fantasy and have often felt that the fantasy relationship were so much better. It is good to find a compatible wife or partner. I have not done so and my life as a background of being a being an only child and spend a lifetime of seeking an ideal partner, lover or soulmate. The ideals and the mundane experiences may be a vast difference and those who find the match and compromise may be the fortunate ones, while many are left stranded and isolated alone.

The idea of blanking out a profile picture when it is perceived by you as 'ugly' seems odd because in real life we cannot cancel out the people we see in the street who we perceive as 'ugly'. Perhaps, you have become too enchanted with the glossy beauties of stylised selfies on the internet. I am not saying that I oppose your right to cancel out avatar pictures which you dislike, but It may be worth thinking about the nature of your request and aesthetic sensitivity on a philosophical level. Socrates was reputed to be ugly, and what does an ugly philosopher represent to you or in public opinion and esteem?

I do appreciate the point you make about Noah taking two of every animal onto the ark and the idea of a twosome or of partnership is important. Beyond sexual partnerships and reproductive, it may that each person needs some kind of significant 'other' in order to construct meaning in a way which is not soliptist.

Mary Shelley's novel 'The Last Man' presents a stark picture of what it would mean to be the only survivor, unable to find any others to communicate with. When I had read the book I wondered what it would mean to be so alone in the sense of not being aware of any other people existing. Would anything matter at all. If anything, at the present time, the masses make one insignificant because there are so many 'others', often making it hard to find one significant other in a sea of people everywhere.

Sometimes, the sea of mass society can lead to anonymity, endless comparisons with others, and many are left alone. I don't have a partner and most of my friends don't either because there are so many individuals who are lost in the multitudes, often with difficulties finding meaningful connections. Also, beyond relationships even friendships which are beyond shallow interaction, especially in the pace and competitiveness of the fast life of individualism.

Apart from the issue of loneliness in relation to aloneness, the one factor which you mention is that of attachment. This varies with different friendships and relationships. It can also create demands from another and unreciprocated needs are often problematic and lead to broken hearts. It is very hard to avoid all attachments, and, as @Paine raised there is the role of ego. I also think it probably also relates to how much quality relationships one experiences in the first place..

It also makes me think of the nature of the autistic spectrum and how some fail to make emotional connections with others. I was once doing an art therapy placement with individuals on the autistic spectrum. While reading research, one important issue here was the way in which people who are are on this spectrum often have difficulties understanding other minds. This leads to problems with communication, empathy and difficulties relating to others. The problem is with the nature of emotional bonds.

The term ego is ambiguous because it is used differently in psychoanalysis to in Eastern philosophy. In some ways, it does capture the nature of conscious identity but it probably should be used carefully, and, often in conventional conversation it conjures up the idea of an inflated sense of self worth. This may be connected with the emphasis on individualism and the triumph of a sense of personal power. Probably, the idea of fame would arise here as the extreme form of mastery of social attention beyond the realms of intimate human contact. Nevertheless, fame could be seen as the one of the extremes of 'the mirror' and narcissistic pride.

It is interesting to read the Lacan quote, especially as I have thought that I should read his writings but have not managed to do so yet. The mirror processes are probably important to ego development and it does seem that traumatic early experiences lead to so many potential problems later.

It is stressful being alone when one has no one to share thoughts with although there are times when social life can be stressful as well. I grew up as an only child and I did feel that was hard. It is also probably why I am better able to do things by myself as I was got used to it. Nevertheless, I have friends who have siblings who create such difficulties for them and my friends think that I am lucky to not have brothers or sisters. It may come down to whether the actual interaction and social life is of good quality or not. Even with relationships many seek them but end up wishing to get out of them if they are a source of suffering rather than happiness.

It does seem that there are several discussions going on about the self on the forum currently. I do see it as being philosophy but I do keep coming back to the psychological because I have studied psychodynamic psychotherapy.

I probably have a fairly stable identity but it does fluctuate. I tend to take failures to heart at times and I have had quite a few. One thing which I do find is that I am sensitive about others' views and do get upset when others try to tell me what to do. I do enjoy being with others but do need time by myself and don't know how people cope who are in a constant social whirlpool.

Human identity in relation to both mind and body. People may have difficulty within and on account of their outer image, especially in a image-driven society. In both respects, some identities seem more fragile. The social aspects of existential aspects of identity exist alongside the issues of how one exists in a cosmic framework. It is likely that the various sides of this vary at different stages in life in important and in relation to what one values. Another aspect may be moral integrity because conscience and its social dimensions may be as important as status. This may be partly due to the social aspects of shame as well as a sense of how one understands relationships with others.

As far as social needs go it is likely that people may be able to cope alone if they have the security of some meaningful relationships, even if the people are not nearby. There are some people though who find it hard to be alone at all. This may be on account of the difficulty of being alone with the self.

The question may be to what extent is the idea of winners or losers based on outer measurements of success. It is a dicey issue because validation, especially in the context of the social contexts may be important, especially in relation to ego identity. To what extent does it come down to social estimations. For example, does the esteemed philosophy professor and successful author have ultimate authority in knowledge. What about the person who may have explored deeply but is unknown or socially rejected? Life is competition, and probably unfair, and what may be important is how a person perceives one's value in this scheme.

Are those who deemed as losers or failures simply measured according to the social measures, especially as these may change? However, an important aspect may be that competition may make or break a person's sense of self-worth, as well as competition having a significant impact on economic survival. There is the question as to what extent one may sell one's soul to achieve the world. However, equally one may lose the world, materially and socially, which may drag the soul to destruction, making competition a trickster dimension in the search for ego integrity.

If anything, Maslow's hierarchy of needs may work on the philosophical assumptions that humans need other humans. This aspect of Maslow's thinking has probably not been given enough scrutiny in philosophy. To some extent, human beings as beings which develop are born at an early stage of development are dependent on human beings for survival. However, the emotional and psychological aspects are more questionable. So much of human life occurs in groups that the idea of the solitary life is not considered seriously.

I do know some people who feel that they get so little from social experience. They need others for their physiological needs but prefer their own company. Such emotional distance may be seen most clearly in individuals on the autistic spectrum. However, that is not to say that others don't experience difficulties in aspects of social life. The idea of the group may be habitual and the time of social distancing in the pandemic may have forced many from social dependency to isolation for the first time, for better or worse. Some may see such separation as a source of emotional distress or, alternatively, as a form of liberation from the voices of tha crowd. The question may be to what extent Maslow's realm of the social needs is essential or not?

Even though I have studied various schools of psychology and sociology, I do agree that theories can get in the way at times. But, in discussion of needs, Maslow's hierarchy may be important because it starts from the physiological going upwards to the social and ones beyond this, especially self-actualization. Human life and the experience of identity may exist on all these levels.

As far as reactionary and the emotions, it may be about at what point does reflective consciousness come into the picture? In particular, it can be asked how different is the experience of sensations in animals and forms of sentience other than humans. As far as I see it, the critical factor may be language in how human beings construct social meanings and personal identity. What do you think is essential to the nature of human desires and emotional attachments. There is the role of language but there are also aspects of raw emotional processing and how much is subconscious or based on subliminal aspects of perception and social interaction?

I probably come from a different perspective from you because I do question the possibility of A1 becoming humans in the way that each of us is at the present time. That is because the A1s will probably not have the significant life experiences of lifeforms which are sentient if not born in the way in which each of us have been at the present time. Of course, it is hard to know how some form of sentient beings will come into existence and to what extent they will have reflective conscious identities or be like empty forms. This is where the question of consciousness comes into the picture and to what extent can it be simulated or created consciously?

As far as sexual identity, it may be not be about sexuality in relation to who one has sex with, but about the basic emotional aspects of sexual identity and gender identity. In this respect, beyond sexual relationships of who people sleep with there is the way people see their own and others' bodies. Freud argued that all human beings are bisexual potentially. This does not necessarily mean that people would go as far as to have gay sex. It is more about how one sees one's own body in relation to others, of both genders. Beyond the question of gay sex there is the nature of the homoerotic, but I am aware that some may see this as a dodgy psychological and philosophical area.

I have studied a fair amount of psychology and early object relations is extremely important, including the nature of sexual identity. The sense of core identity is established. It may be that is so important and all other relationships build from there.

It may be that ego stability is tied up with so much of human interaction, especially ideas of success and failure. It may be a complex process. Apart from the book I read, I went out a fair distance to Greenwich today and, strangely, met 2 ex personal tutors, one of whom I haven't seen for 16 years. It brought back memories of ups and downs on the courses and how those affected my sense of identity. It is such a complex web and probably affects ego fragility and solidity, in the development of an autobiographical sense of identity.

Of course, as the cognitive behaviourists remind us it is not others' opinions which affect us directly but how the beliefs about these affect our emotions. The outer aspects of behaviour and the ongoing developments in social identities are likely to be the result of such emotional memories.

There may be a distinct difference between the poverty of consciousness and the real problem of homelessness. As someone who was on the brink of homelessness in the last month or so, I would query the economics and politics of homelessness in contrast to poverty of consciousness. I am not denying that the poverty of consciousness has any significant psychological role. However, there may be a danger in trying to reduce the problems of homelessness, trying to link inherent problems in the renting market to the psychological. It may be a too easy argument.

The problems of homelessness are real and are confronting people who previously would not have been in danger of both homelessness and poverty. There is a philosophical danger of reducing the economic and political to the psychological, which may result in a glossing over of so many practical issues, ignoring the political factors which are crucial. There is a casting the blame upon those in dire straights, rather than deeper systemic analysis of the problems in renting and the distribution of economic resources.

It is probably a mixture of people hitting on the 'blindspots' of fears about what may be true and some uncertaint. I know that I get upset when people try to give me advice or tell me what I 'ought' to think. Of course, it doesn't always mean that the other is right and I am completely wrong and there can be mutual upset feelings. The person giving the prescriptive opinion may get hurt because that is not accepted just as the person gets disturbed by the unwanted view. The critical issue is that the doubt cast in a person's mind by another's thinking may cause discomfort, as doubt is in itself a source of internal conflict.