Having grown up in Christian culture(Roman Catholicism) I became aware of a split in the ideas about life after death. On one hand, there is the idea of the immortal soul, which seems to go back to Plato and Eastern traditions. On the other hand, there is the idea of the resurrection at the end of the world.

I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting. I know that some people have thought that the soul may continue until the end of the world. It would seem like many disembodied souls waiting to get their bodies back in glorified form, although some have suggested that the resurrection bodies would be spiritualised, rather than simply flesh and blood.It all seems a tangle of the mind-body problem.

One of the issues of art and skill is to do with social position and culture. Some people go to art schools to learn techniques and where one has studied may be as important too. The outsider art movement was important because it was about people who would in usual circumstances be excluded. However, it was only a fairly small movement, as folk art and it does seem that visual art is still elitist in many ways.

With other arts it is so variable with different segments. For example, someone trained in classical music may look down on the music of Oasis or Ed Sheeran, for example, but some may not. There is popular culture and so many genres and it is likely that each have different criteria for evaluating skills. It may be about guitar solos or songwriting, and also fashions within genres change so much. For example, there was the whole trend of English singers putting on an American accent, and the rough and ready aspects of punk and many music subcultures.

Even with fiction books there are so many different ways of thinking about skill and technique, with the tension between popular, the many specialist genres, as well as classical fiction and literary fiction. There may be a change in emphasis on technique and skill as more people are publishing their own work online.

But with the various arts techniques are bound up with different aspects of culture and with marketing. Some of it may be about techniques and some of it as snobbery value as well. Sometimes this may miss the creative processes and it is likely that many creative people never get well known. Then, there is the other extreme of Van Gogh, who was became an enigma after his death, like some musicians too, such as Hendrix. There is also what Todd Rundegrun called ' The Popular Tortured Artist Effect', and apart from art as creative expression there is also the arts therapies which focus more on the psychotherapeutic potential of art more than skill and technique.

One can be messed up with or without drugs. As I see it, drugs and intoxicants may enhance the basics of perception, experience and interpretation, for better or worse.

However, the other side to this is the way in which so many people take medication to drug out their mental states as well. I am not against this because I have worked in psychiatric hospital and have taken antidepressants myself. So much may come down to ideas of what is considered normal or 'messed up'. I remember meeting someone who said that a person without their medications is like seeing someone without their makeup on . An interesting analogy perhaps, in thinking about mental states induced artificially.

How much of biochemistry is about altered states? I never drank coffee until I took caffeine tablets to help me write essays. My biggest addiction is caffeine and I have it everyday as my basic mood stabilizer in the morning. Drugs may be seen as the taboo areas, whereas so many chemicals, ranging from caffeine, sugar and alcohol may be seen as the norm whereas hallucinogenics life cannabis may be viewed through the lens of criticism towards bohemian subversity.

I have mixed feelings about drug intoxication for creativity and enlightenment. I know that Buddhism and other systems advised against it. When I was a teenager I was so strongly against drugs and I certainly didn't drink at age 18, especially as I probably looked about 12. However, when the harsh lessons of life crashed in, I began experimenting with substances as part of the experimental quest. I have not stopped entirely.

It may be that drugs and intoxicants bring so much temptations and illusions that is hard to not get swept away into illusion and delusion. It may be that drugs bring a certain amount of 'enlightenment', but this can go in so many potential directions, including falling apart and having to put oneself together again. Addictions and many of the potential downfalls may be a precarious aspect of this, the left and the right side of evolution. Some may be rise to the heights whereas others may get destroyed in the process of travelling to shamanic upperworlds and underworlds. Perhaps, an essential factor is being aware of risks in chemical adventures.

You have asked an interesting question and it is fairly difficult because people vary so much. However, there may be some underlying aspects of human nature, or essential aspects of motivation. Maslow speaks of the hierarchy of needs which begin from physical to the social ones with the need for self-actualization as the highest ones. All these aspects may be linked to what a human being may become.

Part of the issue of what is essential to being human is the way in which life circumstances can bring out so many different aspects and education may be about cultivating the best possibilities. There is the question of nature and nurture as a questionable area with genetic determinants but what happens in early life may be extremely influential, as stressed by the child psychologists, including John Bowlby. The role of trauma may have a critical effects on core development of personality.

The process of becoming is a life long art, and what happens at any stage can either make or break a person. However, it may be that working on oneself, in spite of difficult life experiences, as the idea of 'the examined life's may be about reflection on the narrative of experience, as an important process of being human in a consciously aware way. This conscious awareness can be about becoming a person in a unique sense.

I am not sure about your idea of seeing 'metaphysics as the understanding of language'. All thinking is done in language, as the basis of forming concepts. Metaphysics is the process of this historically. Certainly, as time has gone on more knowledge is verified empirically, through science. Nevertheless, the grasping of concepts is still essential for understanding theories and thinking about empirical knowledge, so metaphysics is still important as the underlying foundation linked to language. Perhaps, both language and metaphysics can be juxtaposed effectively.

It seems that your post was your first on this forum. So, I welcome you to the forum. I hope that you find plenty of worthwhile discussion of ideas and I look forward to further interaction with you.

The idea of seeing 'natural science as the "search for the supernatural"' is an interesting construct. It may take some physicalists by surprise. The issue will be that there will always be gaps. When old ones close, new ones will emerge. It is a bit like the idea of the Waterboys' song, of seeking to see 'The Whole of the Moon'. I am not opposed to science though because self-correction is important. The idea of the natural supernatural is extremely different from making things up. Apart from causation the nature of rational thinking about the ideas and concepts which are used does seem to be essential.

It is possible that a lot of different meanings of many topics glosses over so much of the initial concepts within metaphysics. Terms like mind and body can be used differently even though, generally mind is taken to be the mental and body as the physical, because there isn't a clear division between the two, making it problematic to say that one caused the other to exist. So, metaphysics may involve some details of what ideas involve in their implications. The reflection on such meaning may give rise to deeper understanding and this kind of metaphysics which is more about reflections on conceptual aspects of thoughts may aid clearer understanding.

I am not sure that this kind of analysis would be opposed to the approach of Kant and Hume, who were the starting point of Murdoch's critique. Part of the essential problem may be the term metaphysics and what people associate with it because many may see it as an archaic term. The idea of looking at 'how we see' may be part of this way of thinking because the thoughts which a person has are based on consciousness itself, so cannot be separated from the meanings, even if they are shared by many.

It goes back to the idea of the observer role in perception, or even science, with the relative understandings implied. This does entail a certain amount of relativism and may mean that part of the problem of the gaps is because there is a perceptual element to any understanding of reality at all. It may be related to the idea of the multiverse or multidimensional because there are infinite ways of perceiving or understanding.
Each person sees differently and the individual's own perspective is in a process of changing all the time.

I do agree that metaphysics doesn't have to be a search for the 'supernatural' and that may be part of the problem, with it being seen as the attempt to find hidden meanings which are mythic. It may be that the problem is about concrete thinking in the first place rather than about understanding the interplay between causation and symbolic aspects of human thinking.

I can see your point about metaphysics appearing as 'an island outside the criticism of science' insofar as it involves aspects which cannot be known directly. It does make it hard to come up with a clear picture, interrelated with the problem of epistemology. Certainly, it does seem that science is extremely important, and it may be that the metaphysical imagination is involved. Some may choose to disregard it, but it may be that it is not as if scientific paradigms don't change, especially the Cartesian-Newtonian one to the one of quantum physics. There is a danger of any of these models being seen too literally.

I will be interested to know your thoughts on 'Existentialists and Mystics' when you have read it. You will probably approach it by a better method than mine, of reading it in one sitting and then, needing to go back for a more thorough read.

It is interesting to think of the idea of metaphysics in relation to the good and evil. It would seem that at certain points in history these were seen as metaphysical realities as opposed to the way in which they are seen more as values. In Christianity there was an idea of a battle between good and evil; this lead to real battles in the form of wars to eliminate evil.

However, there was a lot of dispute about the nature of good and evil within Christianity. One aspect of theology was the idea of the privatio boni, which involved the idea of evil being the absence of good. This was explored by Victor White, a theologian who had dialogue with Carl Jung, in White's book, 'God and the Unconscious'. Part of this debate was about whether the doctrine glossed over the reality of evil.

However, this does come down to how reality is seen in the first place, and does come down to how the underlying nature of symbolic reality is viewed. In considering the way in which evi had not been seen as a source in it's own right Jung was developing a metaphysics which saw symbolic reality as fundamental. This was more in line with that of Plato, who saw the archetypes as symbolic, but with this symbolic aspect as the primary metaphysical reality. This is such a contrast to the present dominant paradigm, based on empirical science, which sees the physical world as the basic structure and the symbolic dimensions as secondary. It is linked to the question over the foundation of metaphysics being based on idealism or materialism.

Going back to the issue of Murdoch though, there is an essay in the volume 'Existentialists and Mystics', on the idea of perfection. I only looked at this briefly because the volume of writings is large and was pretty intense. So, I will have a reread of the essay on perfection, to see what light this throws on her understanding, because it does seem that she was seeing an important relationship between metaphysics and ethics.

Yes, Murdoch does initially speak of the void in British politics. I do see her as describing what is happening rather than advocating for the elimination of metaphysics. Perhaps, I did not make this clear in my outpost. I guess that the point I was trying to make was that Murdoch was describing a process of elimination of metaphysics in the last century. I was connecting this with where philosophy is going in the twentieth first century, thinking that this may have developed further. She is describing a process which goes back to Kant and Hume. However, I was suggesting that it may be that in the context of the twentieth first century philosophy, especially where science is seen as such an important source of understanding. So, I may have not clarified the difference in her basic description of what is happening and my own comparison or reflection on this in the current philosophical climate.

The role of emotions in contrast to metaphysics is an interesting aspect. It may be that people strive to come up with ideas and conceptual thought, but that emotions lurk behind the scenes more than many would care to admit. Likes and dislikes as attitudes and values may have such a strong power and influence in the development of rational thought. This may be about conditioned ideas but also in relation to emotional aspects of life experiences. There may be conflict between rationality and emotion, on a subconscious or conscious level and it may be a question which has the biggest influence and this can vary at different times.

I only managed to see a bit of the video because it kept breaking up. I have a lot of problems with the signal where I am, so I often have to do certain things in cafes. But, I had read the authors, and at one stage, I found Rupert Sheldrake's ideas important. It was probably the point at which I was trying to see the natural explanations rather supernatural ones. I also found Lyall Watson's book, 'Supernatural' fairly helpful, because I had grown up with a clear ingrained belief in God. Even now, I do find myself slipping into times of seeing an external cause.

It may be a form of projection, but, there again, thinking through a lot of the issues of philosophy, especially those related to religion is hard work. Some people have been brought up with no supernatural explanations, so these seem peculiar to their thinking. But, the mixture of being exposed to different and opposing ideas can give rise to a lot of conflicting ideas. Certainly, that is where I come from and I know a lot of people who are confused about how to think about reality amidst exposure to various systems of ideas, especially the metaphysical aspects, because they are central to understanding life and existence.

The idea of beyond physics is an interesting alternative to metaphysics. It may be that many see physics almost as if it is a concrete picture of reality. The models can only go so far. The neuroscientists can point to the way in which red is perceived in the eye and the brain, but the idea of redness as a concept is harder to explain. Of course, it is a shared construct which has developed in evolution but even though languages vary and the specific details of ideas vary from culture to culture, most concepts, including love, time, and happiness exist, almost like inbuilt concepts to a large extent. It would be amazing if a group of people were found who had completely different concepts, like they were from another planet.

I am more familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance than Paul Davies's idea of memes, but it does seem that they overlap. I read a couple of books by Rupert Sheldrake and the idea of a memory inbuilt in nature which develops seems like Jung's idea of the collective unconscious within nature. It is likely that those who reject the concept of the collective unconscious will find Sheldrake's ideas as a bit unscientific. The thing is that it is hard to prove or disprove of such ideas by scientific methods. The ideas do resemble the approach of Plato, with the
existence of Forms or archetypes. The problem which many may have with such a perspective is that it is not possible to establish their existence objectively. That is because it is not possible to get outside of the human experiences of subjective experience and look beyond it. I believe that Kant made this point.

However, even the models in physics are descriptive and constructions in the human mind. In the conception of models, the human imagination is involved. So, both physics and metaphysics involve going beyond. Some who hold a position of realism may see this as being where flights of fantasy may occur. This is true, and it may be where mythic truth steps in. On the other hand, while there is the basis of perception of the senses as an accurate portrayal of reality it is not possible to say that there are not aspects which are not known or will never be known. For example, in previous centuries there wasn't the knowledge of possible electricity and wifi. It is as if science has opened up dimensions, and maybe, there are more to be opened in the future.

I have just read the essay by Maritain and it is very helpful. It does seem that so many seem to see empiricism as given knowledge rather than paying attention to the way in which the understanding is based on concepts. All scientific hypotheses and theories based on the evidence which is generated by ideas and the metaphysical imagination.

I would say that the arguments in the volume, ' Existentists and Mystics' seemed to suggest that metaphysics and physics are interrelated. That was while I was struggling to fit it together with the 'House of Theory' essay. I guess that may be a problem of a volumes of collected writings because they include different stages of someone's ideas. Generally, it seems to make sense to see metaphysics as intrinsic to ethics because the overall understanding of reality is bound up with values as a starting point for thinking about how one should live. I think in the particular essay, she was at the point of seeing a void in understanding, which was potentially problematic.

I do want to read metaphysics and I wasn't dismissing the article by saying I will read it in the morning. It is simply that it is after midnight and I am getting later and later to bed!

Thanks for the link and I will read it in the morning.

This is mainly in response to @Banno and @Jamals posts, but it may be relevant to others involved in the discussion on the thread too. I had a slower read of the essay by Iris Murdoch' 's 'A House of Theory'. In her examination of the idea of the elimination of metaphysics, she is pointing to specific problems raised by metaphysicians who came up with 'dogmatic metaphysical arguments'. She points to the way in which both Kant and Hume, as well as Hegel, were important in the development of empiricism. The essential point is that she is arguing for is the importance of 'philosophical method' as opposed to mere beliefs. She states,
'Hume, whose "elimination" followed the simple lines of atomic empiricism, regarded all beliefs equally irrational...Kant more systematically attempted to show why our knowledge was limited to certain kinds of object, and, in doing so pictured the mind as solely concerned with the objects of empirical observation and science

However, she does acknowledge the addition Kant had 'of belief in Reason, with the tentative belief in God'. I actually think that this aspect is glossed over by Murdoch, because belief in God is such a major concept metaphysically

However, the main point which Murdoch is making is making is the emphasis on empiricism. She states that, 'Modern British philosophy is Humian and Kantian in inspiration. It follows Hume and Kant in regarding sense experience as the only basis for knowledge, and it follows Kant in attempting more specifically to show that concepts not so based are "empty".

I am adding this to the discussion to give a clearer picture of her underlying outlook, and she also speaks of 'the error by which former philosophers imagined themselves to be making quasi-factual discoveries when really they were preaching'. Her overall argument is that there needs to be a rational, empirically basis for philosophy and that this is 'A House of Theory'.

Murdoch wrote this essay in 1958, so the issue of the 'elimination of metaphysics' is different because scientific knowledge has come a long way. However, it is worth being aware of her historical argument but it may have different implications in the context of twentieth first century thinking.

It did appear that Iris Murdoch was acknowledging Hume and Kant's criticism of metaphysics. So, it is probably important for those who criticize these, especially Kant, should be aware of how these had come a long way from earlier metaphysics.

It does seem that Kant has become rather unpopular, as if he came out of the stone age, but in his time, he was coming from such a critical position. Part of the issue with Kant's philosophy may be even though he did pay attention to empirical aspects of knowledge, may be that many query his a priori approach. Or, it may be his puritanical views about sex which contributed to the dismissal of his writings.

Of course existence is important and 'We cannot sweep it under the carpet'. But, it the various different ways of explaining it all are complicated. I would not wish to dismiss the importance of the major writers, including Kant. But, it is not as if all the philosophers like Hume and Schopenhauer agreed on everything. So, in the twentieth first century it is harder with so many divergent theories and ideas, especially science. Putting all of it together in one's thinking is difficult and it is likely that each person brings a certain amount of uniqueness in thinking or philosophy 'voice'. In that respect, each person is a metaphysician.

I found Murdoch's writing really good. As far as I can see she was questioning the elimination more than answering it specifically. But, part of the reason I have some difficulty establishing her view entirely is that the volume , 'Existentialists and Mystics' is a compilation of essays, so it is about various ideas she had at different times, so it is a little disjointed, and some of it is more focused on literature than philosophy. This means that reading various essays involves trying to connect all of this. But, I will go back later today to the specific one which I quoted to see if there is any aspect which is worth including in this thread.

I am not sure to what extent people think there is one way of seeing reality. Okay, to a large extent there is so much agreement about aspects of perception of reality. However, if it really comes down to it there may be subtle differences.

I am not trying to be awkward but speaking from critical incidents I am aware of. It is surprising how different people recall the series of events or the details. I am even aware of a burglary where there is a discrepancy as to whether the burglars wore masks or not. I wonder how discrepancies occur. In some cases, it may be about people not telling the truth but it may also be that people see what they expect to see, or that their thoughts interfere with perception of events.

Thanks for your lengthy reply. It is interesting to think about metaphysics in connection with religion because many of the thinkers of the past did see metaphysics in connection with religious perspectives. In particular, the ideas of good and evil were bound up in Christian thought with the idea of God.

The gradual movement towards science as opposed to religious thinking within rationalism and humanism may be connected to less metaphysical speculation. It may be related to the move away from ideas about the supernatural, or ideas about hidden aspects of reality. I am not suggesting that it is worth fabricating complex otherworldly suggestions of how reality works. That seems more like fiction, or myth, but, at the same time, I am not certain that it possible to eliminate or eradicate metaphysics because even with scientific knowledge there is a lot which is unknown.

Humanity has moved from a perception of a flat earth, but philosophy may go too far in flat thinking. Life is embedded in stories. Perhaps, the difference may be about seeing stories for what they are and disentangling the mythical aspects of life from the causal explanations offered through science.

I do agree that metaphysics is the basis for all understanding, especially ethics. The way reality is, or works, is essential to the questions about how one should live. It may be that metaphysical perspectives have to be altered on the basis of empirical investigations but that is another matter.

Those who see metaphysics as being nonsensical may just be making metaphysical assumptions invisible. It does not mean that they have really gone beyond it. If anything, the idea that metaphysics can be eliminated may be a form of concrete thinking, as if there is one way of seeing reality rather than the plurality of possibilities.

I think that Murdoch is speaking of a tendency to move away from metaphysics. She is speaking of what is happening, rather than saying what should happen. It is about the is/ ought dichotomy and she remains in the is category. If anything, I think she is critical of the tendency, or, at least, raising rhetorical questioning of it.

My understanding is that mysticism is not necessarily the same in philosophy, but that the term metaphysics was used in a specific way by some who considered themselves to be mystics. I am thinking of the metaphysical poets, such as John Donne.

However, the relationship between metaphysics and mysticism may be more complex. Even in thinking of the approach of language being a limitation, it is possible to see Wittgenstein as a mystic, but it is probably a very different kind of mysticism, if it is called that, than those who come from a religious or spiritual approach to mysticism.

You definitely capture the way in which in the progress of ideas there appears to be an ongoing progression towards reason and explanations. There is a big difference in the approach of Aristotle from Plato. When ideas of the past are read it is often with the acknowledgement that many writers didn't have the scientific knowledge which is known today, including Darwin's ideas on evolution and the ideas of modern physics.

I wonder if people who advocate for the elimination of metaphysics are only the physicalists. I am not sure if I have ever interacted with someone who is a complete idealist to know what they think. It is probably difficult to remain a complete idealist in this time in which the physical basis of life is so understood.

It may be that those who hold on to the philosophy of realism may see sensory reality as the complete picture, but they may be missing the phenomenological aspect of perception. The emotions and psychological aspects of understanding may play such a significant role. That is where the complexity of inner experience and 'out there reality' come in with the qualia conundrum. There appear to be underlying basis of perception but there is still a level of interpretation in evidence of the senses. Also, one's so called attempt to see reality objectively may gloss over blindspots.

I am not really convinced that metaphysics can be eliminated ever because there are always gaps and aspects of life which defy explanations. I am not sure that anyone can ever expect to be able to understand everything. But, even with so many facts at one's disposal imagination is needed to piece all the parts together. Perhaps, what is needed is more thorough metaphysics than in the past, or system builders with more synthetic understanding, in putting the many broken fragments of the past pictures together in a new way.

Metaphysics and epistemology are so bound together that it would be hard to eliminate one without the other. Even those who make assumptions about science cannot help but use metaphysical assumptions. To some extent all human thinking involves a certain amount of metaphysics, including theism and atheism. Even Ayer thought that while metaphysics lead to tautologies he said that people were still likely to wonder about metaphysical aspects of existence.

With Wittgenstein, it was not so much a rejection of metaphysics as a critique of the nature of language and the limitations which it imposes on human understanding.

I don't think that Murdoch is saying that metaphysics should be eliminated necessarily. She is merely describing what she saw happening in the gradual developments of philosophy in previous centuries and in the twentieth century.

It may be that the understanding of reality, in commonsense or philosophy appears to be a fairly accurate picture. However, it is still about constructing models, which may have to be altered on the basis of new 'facts'. In that sense, all knowledge, including science is still speculative to some extent, because aspects of it may have to be revised or attuned to further details.

Yes, I am aware of your thread. It may be some discussion of what metaphysics is inevitable in d
but I am intending it to be more of looking at the way in which metaphysics may still be important. I do read the thinkers which I referred to. Recently, I have been reading Schopenhauer and do find his ideas on the way in which Kant's idea of the thing in itself can be about human will, or consciousness. It is a form of demystification

But, yes, the issue of 'truth' is a wider one, especially the division between objective, subjective and intersubjective aspects. I am aware that you have your own thread on the Tao de Ching, which is a text which I have not read still. However, I do see the value of Eastern metaphysics generally. In particular, I find some Eastern ideas on the body and mind useful. That is because there is less emphasis on mind as brain but more of an appreciation of the idea of the 'subtle body', which may be about the limbic system.

I would call your observations as being contemplation, but if it led on to explanations which were not based on scientific methods it would either be observations. But, if it was developed to a specific view or theory, then it would be metaphysical speculation.

I would have to go back and look at Blake's writings because I have not read them for such a long time, before I began reading that much philosophy. You are probably right to say that he rejects the duality of mind and body. His emphasis on imagination was important too and this may be one big contribution he made to philosophy. It is also useful to read about Blake's ideas and the one writer who I have come across is Kathleen Raine.

I am impressed by someone starting a thread on the philosophy of William Blake, especially as the philosophy of religion and of science gets so much attention. Literature is important too as an aspect for philosophical exploration, especially such a distinct voice (and visionary) as Blake.

I have loved 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' since I discovered it at age 16. It is fairly difficult to interpret, and part of it comes down to the influence of the visionary, Emmanuel Swedenborg, who influenced Blake so much.

As far as the 'voice of the devil', it seems that Blake is criticising the idea of perfection as a goal within Christianity, especially in the form of asceticism. There are some parallels between Blake's approach to this with Carl Jung in 'Answer to Job'. Jung points to the way in which Christianity tends to suggest the need to suppress and repress sexual desires.

Blake's philosophy is extremely interesting one in the way it came at a time when most people believed in the metaphysical reality of God and the devil. It is a contrast to the approach of Milton, even though Blake suggests that Milton was 'part of the devil's party without knowing it.' When I first read the passage it did trouble me because I was a practicing Catholic at the time and I thought that I was probably part of the 'devil's party because I was better at expression of the demonic side too.

It is important to note that Blake sees a duality of the soul and the body. Of course, it is rare to use the concept of the soul, and are more likely to use the term mind or self. I find the idea of 'Energy is eternal delight' inspirational and many others have done so too. Blake was an artist and poet who was radical for his time. He was also rather eccentric and a visionary. If he were alive today he would have probably been Sectioned for treatment in a psychiatric hospital and, quite likely, he would not have written and created the work for which he is known and loved by so many.

Nowhere and no man's land
Opposite to something
There is nothing to say about nothing
Hopping around looking for what can't be found
Is there any potential in the void?
No clear explantions about nothing
Got to find a path back to the reality of existence

I looked at your poll and began trying to vote, but didn't do so because the categories seemed too clear cut. In particular, I am not sure whether there will be an actual 'apocalypse or not, but wouldn't say that I have no answer because it is something which I wonder about so much. Originally, my thoughts on apocalypse were based on the Bible, with a bit of Nostradamus thrown in.

However, stepping outside of those perspectives the actual possibility of apocalypse still appears to be a possibility with the weapons of mass destruction and ecological issues. But, it is hard to know what will happen and it may be that there are some apocalyptic scenarios, but not ones which affect the entire world. Of course, there could be one ultimate one, such as if the most powerful atom bomb was dropped, destroying all human and other lifeforms, and, possibly the planet itself. Another scenario is the possibility of a meteorite crashing into the earth.

Certainly is much an issue in accuracy. However, in organisations there may be an attempt to gloss over the uncertainties. Sometimes, policies and statistics may make it appear that there is more certainty and predictability than there is. One book which I found helpful for thinking about the nature of lack of certainty was Nassim Taleb's, ' The Black Swan' which speaks about how the uncertainties can be understood and used as a basis for decisions. In relation to judgments, it may be that the attention in judgments should be focused on the unique and particulars rather than simply general patterns of predictability.

You know that I am a little inclined to see philosophy as the search for answers and truth. When I wrote the thread I didn't clearly think about what I meant by the term judgment but I guess that I was implying accuracy as a general measure. For example, if there is a court case it is a matter of weighing up information and witness accounts to get the truest picture. For example, there have been people sentenced to prison and it has later been discovered that they were not guilty. Some aspects of judgment are about clarity and thoroughness, like if one has a medical issue and goes to doctors there is a need for thoroughness and care in getting the most correct diagnosis and treatment, which gets into medical ethics. It may be that judgment as an aspect of philosophy is connected to the application of philosophical scrutiny in the practical matters of life and the use of critical analysis and thinking.