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.

Your question is an important one in psychology and various schools of psychotherapy. In psychodynamic perspectives the relationship between one's unique experiences and interpersonal interaction is focused on early experiences, especially between the child and the parents. Freud focused on sexuality and Melanie Klein focused on the maternal bond, especially in what is projected onto the mother. The dynamics of projection continue throughout life with the earliest wounds and traumas being the raw foundations for emotional processing, especially surfacing in the experiences of being 'upset'.

There is general trend towards cognitive and neuroscience but the core features of social dynamics and the structure of emotional processing come into the picture. The neuroscientists point to the way in which brain structures and neurochemicals come into play. The cognitive-behavioral scientists look at the link between emotions and beliefs. In particular, they argue that our emotional experiences, especially upsetting ones, are not caused by the experiences in themselves but our interpretations of them.

The nature of upsetting experiences relates to the nature of suffering itself as well as the explanations for what upsets us. The personal need to understand why experiences are upset us and try to heal the upsets is an underlying problem which leads people to seek therapies, which can be a long journey for some, especially in finding the right therapist. Some find help in self-help books and groups.

What one discovers and finds helpful varies, but is important in the general search for wellbeing and self awareness. Some people are more sensitive than others, who seem in comparison so thick-skinned. This can make life harder but it is also likely that such sensitivity will enable them to be able to assist others who are also working with difficult emotional experiences.

The vicious cycle of mistakes and fear is probably central to the idea of karma and what is learned through the consequences of action, with the principle, 'As you sow, so shall you reap.' It does seem for many people it is a vicious cycle of similar experiences as a basis for experiential learning and reflection.

There are also the big and the small mistakes as a spectrum. The big ones are those such as criminal acts, including murder, which alter the course of one's life entirely. For most people, however, it is more about wrong jobs, courses and failed relationships, which lead to regrets. It can be hard to avoid getting stuck in wallow in self pity or recrimination and move on. Everyone goes at different paces and,often, 'quick fixes' as solutions don't work.

There is so much variation in what is learned practically and how much is part of the philosophy quest itself. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of human life mistakes may lead a person to go deeper in the search for wisdom and understanding.

What you are saying about the two aspects of the sickle cell/malaria trait is true of most parts of life, with all flaws in nature having an up and a downside. For example, it was through the exploration of diseases that so much was known about the body and science. This applies to all aspects of culture too. The grave horror and sufferings of the first and second war were a starting point for the revolutionary movements of the 1960s, including so much social change.

It goes back to the yin and the yang, formerly known as the problem of good and evil. It is encouraging really because it shows that suffering caused by 'mistakes' may be potential for positive innovation and creativity.

I am writing this from a rather difficult situation, probably due to many mistakes of myself and others. I am in the process of moving from the accommodation where I am now as it is being repossessed. At the moment, I have half my things in the old place and half in the new, hoping to get out of here properly by Friday. Yesterday, at the old place where I am there was a big crash and the kitchen ceiling collapsed. Fortunately, no one was hurt but it is really unsafe as there is a great big gaping hole, foam coming through and wires exposed and it is not possible to use the bathroom without going through the kitchen. So, I am agonising over sorting, almost tempted to leave a ghastly mess behind here and get out of here asap.

What I am trying to illustrate by my own anecdotal story is that the outcomes of mistakes are critical juncture for innovation and change. In human beings there is the question of what we learn from mistakes, which is the psychological factor in the any evolutionary perspective on 'mistakes' or flaws in nature.

The philosophy question may be whether there is any 'method' beyond our meaning and understanding of it. Making mistakes is our human way of seeing it and within nature it may be just about diversity and what works as an evolutionary pathway. Perhaps, there are no mistakes ultimately and it is about human framing, although the idea of 'mistakes' is probably important in trying not to repeat that which has not achieved desired goals.

It may be like the creative and experimental process in evolution itself. Amidst a backdrop of chaotic mistakes some kind of evolution and transmutation of consciousness may take place. In human consciousness the emotional experiences related to mistakes leads to different approaches. It may parallel evolution itself as a form of cosmic tuning process.

There are probably biological aspects of this, and Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance points to the way in which there is some inherent memory in nature itself. On the genetic level, there is some speculation that junk DNA may contain more about potential than previously thought, especially about emotional development. The psychology of making mistakes has a profound influence on wellbeing and, it may be that the experience of suffering itself involves a shift in awareness and consciousness.

I have heard a little of Black Grape and quite liked it, but not as much as Shaun Rider's Happy Mondays'. As far as knowing British music, I am in the process of moving and keep digging out music from so many obscure bands in England and some in America. I adore The Stone Roses, The Stranglers and The Psychedelic Furs, and some current ones. I even wonder if it such music captures insights which are beyond the scope of the logic of philosophy and my line-up for tonight includes The Charlatans, Caz Coombes of Supergrass, The Cure, The Fall and possibly The Artic Monkeys...

I do like the Nine Inch Nails, especially 'The Downward Spiral', and a lot of goth as catharsis, but mainly for melancholy moments. I really like the Jesus and Mary Chain's 'Darklands'. One band who I find invigorating are the Mission and I do like some punk for coping with anger. I do find some more recent stuff too, like 'Brutalism'

In my time on the forum you stand out as such an important contributor. That is probably why you have never been banned. If you got banned I would certainly question being a participant on the forum because your own thinking seems so important. I just think that all of us need to slow down a bit. As way of feedback; I am inclined to think that your use of equations in threads may not help because they are a little bit abstract for many, such as myself, who don't come from a background in mathematics.

Of course, it is difficult because life is pressured, often with so little outlet. I often feel that I am exploding or imploding, juggling so much as mental gymnastics. However, all of us probably need to watch our philosophy footprints; as real as carbon footprint in ecology, but it is a hard task.

If If everyone was so careful there may not be any philosophy threads and discussions at all. So, it is an ongoing area for thinking about ideas and free association, but I definitely value the contributions which you have made in many philosophy discussions, especially in various threads which I created. I would be devastated if you were ever banned, just as if I were banned. Of course, if banning does happen, it is probably best to rise above it, and see one's ideas and thinking as not being irreducible to the forum and others' perceptions of such ideas. This may be in line with the deepest understanding of what philosophy stands for, in the outer and inner credentials of meaning in life.

I am aware of your situation and I would be extremely sorry to see you go, even though I am sure you would resurrect in glory on some site, as a great loss for this one.

My own reflection on your situation and your creation of many threads, because I am inclined to create many too, is that it is best to slow down sometimes, to think before speaking. In some posts I wrote over a year ago, I just wrote my raw thoughts, unprocessed. It is difficult because thoughts whirl through the mind. Now, I try to slow down and think more carefully what I write, especially as these thoughts remain onsite unless they stand out as so questionable that moderators intervene.

It is a questionable area and it probably depends on the basis for bans. I do use another philosophy site on which there don't seem to be bans. The moderators don't see the purpose and see it as a form of censorship. In some ways I agree with that but on the whole the quality is better here because on the other one, which I won't name, people write pages and pages of insults to others and often it means that there is little in the way of genuine depth discussion.

I know that you wrote this thread because you were upset about the banning of a recent member. As it happens I don't think that I had interacted with him, and it can be a shock when someone you know gets banned. The ban which did affect me was 3017Amen because he was someone who I used to communicate with a lot.

Another thing which I wonder a lot about is how would I feel is if I got banned. Some people may see it as a moment of fame or notoriety. I think that I would be extremely devastated and see it as a form of rejection and even 'failure'.

As far as time out goes, I believe that there are suspensions here as well and far less extreme. If they became common they may have little meaning. If anything I wonder more about bans being permanent and wonder if there could be something like a 1 or 2 year allowance for reconsideration. That is because as it is, a definite one seems like a form of eternal damnation to the TFP hell of burning flames, as a lost soul beyond redemption.

Depeche Mode are a great catharsis for anger and I recommend the album 'Violator'. For anger, especially about the state of the world, I recommend one of my favourite albums by 'Mindbomb' by The The.

I find Depeche Mode to be a wonderful band. The whole era of electric eighties, including some of the darker stuff is loved by many. I also like Marc Almond so much. However, I am not able to link to You Tube on my phone and spend so much time playing discs in full. I even like Duran Duran, who are often viewed as a boy band, but some of it like, 'Seven and the Ragged Tiger' album goes beyond pop.

Gradually, I think that we are being seen more as objects within a system which is becoming more and more robotic. In the last couple of years, with so much becoming online that is more so. It is now becoming harder to even see a career objects as opposed to a bot. People are almost becoming outdated because they are seen as dysfunctional objects in comparison with machines. There are political aspects as well, with a question of whose subjectivities are considered important in the power hierarchy.

It is likely that the mistake is where people take the subjective as if it were objective, unable to make the clear distinction. Indeed, it may be that people see history and whatever descriptive lens through which they view reality as the ultimate way of thinking. This can happen when a religious or any worldview is regarded as literal without an awareness of other positions and their validity.

It also can be that the psychological and emotional aspects of beliefs are regarded as the 'truth'. In this, the underlying premises and assumptions are not put under examination. This may be the route source of many philosophical mistakes and fallacies, as an an antiphilosophy approach, of being unable to stand back and analyse the nature of ways of seeing and forming judgements.

On the subject of time and place, I read a book looking at the way in which cultural biases and interpretations come into how historical facts are viewed, by Richard Rudley, 'Lost Civilisations of the Stone Age'. He explores the idea of 'progress' critically and how people view ideas with a bias of linear progression, in relation to the understanding of civilisation, culture and knowledge. In this, he is not arguing that important developments haven't been made but that there is often a sense of cultural superiority in interpretation of facts. This is the problem of the lack of objective, and how so much is constructed intersubjectively in the way history and culture are constructed and passed on.

To some extent the interpretation of evidence is the issue of subjectivity, objectivity and intersubjectivity. On the other hand, it comes down to qualia of mental states, and how such experiences are understood. There is the question of how the 'real' is considered, especially in relation to 'truth'. Facts appear on those validated and shared by others. The basic aspects of evidence is about shared ideas and assumptions. It may be how hallucinations and delusions are established.

However, there is still the way in which evidence can be constructed to support a viewpoint rather than necessarily the other way round. With evidence based there is substantiated evidence but there while one study shows one point there may be studies that show the opposite. Evidence may be more clear in the interpretations of the real, but even then people may perceive on the biases of their own ideas and psychological motivations.

The 'I' may be like an underlying reflective narrator, as an aspect of subjectivity. The 'I'in being able to observe in the process of making meaning out of the various experiences. This 'I' as a central aspect of thinking was what lead Descartes to the, 'I think, therefore I am', may be what lead to the position of dualism.

I mean that mind and body are not separate but joined in the phenomenological process of embodied life experiences.

I am not a materialist and, to some extent, when we look as subjective actors upon the world, it is an illusion, because inner and outer are not a dualistic split. As human beings we are embodied and the existence of others, is as subjective actors relating to one another, in a complex web of meanings.

It is questionable to what extent others can be viewed as objects, because it is partly about external reality. Even one's own body, or parts, such as hands can be regarded as objects in the sense of being able to view their existence in the outer, material world.

Part of the importance of viewing others as subjects rather than simply as objects is recognising their values and meanings. It is the issue of people being ends rather than being seen as means. I remember going to see a careers officer just after I left school and during discussion he said to me, 'By now you should have got to the stage of just seeing other people as objects, like chairs and tables'. I simply didn't know what to say, to a careers officer who had such a philosophy approach...

One aspect which you raise which may be important is the idea of authority, especially in regard to objectivity. Sometimes, this may be missed as a subtle subtext of how both logic and evidence are valued and critiqued. There is bias on the foundation of politics and underlying ideas of objectivity based on the way in which 'expert' knowledge and authority are conceived as the foundation for philosophy. So, the basic question may be about how is authoritative, or 'expert' opinion constructed?

Your post is important because while the concept of 'fallacy' is important in relation to the idea of falsehood, there are specific logical errors which make so much difference in the basic assumptions of human thinking. It is probably not so much as 'truth' being 'out there' in an objective realm, beyond all else. The subjective construction, as well as the intersubjective, are important in understanding of the objective. This comes into play in the whole approach to understanding, including inductive reasoning.

Even the idea of 'progress' seems to signify an ongoing progressive understanding and the nature of this does lead to the question of to what extent can this be sought objectively. Science may involve the empirical, but how this is constructed, subjectively, in human understanding is a different matter. It may lead to the question of is there is any essential value-free objective logic or evidence?

You are quite right to query the idea of a fallacy, with the idea going back to Plato. There is the idea of 'truth' as opposed to falsehood, and thinking about this on the basis of logic alone may lead to a presumption of duality. The introduction of the empirical and evidence may lead to questioning of this binary distinction because evidence can usually be found to support arguments for and against in most aspects of thinking about life and existence.

Perhaps you should try vaping, with some CBD included as an alternative to conventional cigarette smoking. Nevertheless, there is probably not enough evidence at this stage to know whether it is safer than 'ordinary' tobacco cigarettes, or whether CBD and vaping are a mythic fad.

Your point is that it is difficult to follow the rational facts which appear. I struggle with this too, although I am not a smoker! Generally, I find it hard to follow the practical steps which would seem to be the 'best'. It is the reason why advice doesn't usually work, especially in health promotion. Evidence of what helps and the logical steps necessary on that basis doesn't seem to make that much difference.

It could be seen as a problem of lack of self discipline, or alternatively it may be that human action and choices are made in the immediate contexts of the situations in which we find ourselves. This often makes evidence and logic as redundant and abstract. Nevertheless, it may be that what is seen in retrospect is different from in the immediate, so time is significant. Also, the many variables may come into play. A person may give up smoking and still not get to see his grandchildren.

Generally, I was impressed by Whitey's presentation of various logical fallacies. However, the only thing which did make me query it was the summary on the back cover which spoke of 'winning arguments'. This attitude does suggest attempts at persuasion as opposed to the genuine search for truth'. I am not suggesting 'Trutth' with a capital T as absolutism but as weighed understanding. The alternative of philosophy as a means of persuasion is based on one's own needs or possibly of some group interest or ideology. Philosophy as persuasion may be shallow as it is with another end in mind rather than an open approach to where the philosophy quest may lead.

I wonder how much conventional thinking is about the wish for answers and certainty. The way in which questions keep arising shows how knowledge is static and evolving. The generation of questions may be part of the creative process in itself and the premature formulation of 'answers' in a clear, definitive way is what leads to dogma and rigidity.

As much as trauma and suffering can have a detrimental effect on wellbeing, it does serve the purpose of making people go further in thinking and exploration. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that all who explore philosophy are suffering. But, at the same time, suffering does propel deeper thinking and may prevent some from complacency and lazy logic.

I guess that there is also a difference between the idea of philosophy as a basic set of ideas and assumptions for daily life and philosophy as an academic pursuit. They are not separate entirely though because the academic philosophy is not just as a form of mental gymnastics which looks and sounds good but is about fine-tuning of thinking. Independently of studying philosophy as such, it is likely that some have more of a questioning disposition than others. Also, some have more need to read and think about philosophy if common sense and various ideas encountered seem inadequate or contradictory.

In thinking about suppositions and prejudices, it is where philosophy and psychology come together in self-knowledge and critical thinking. In some ways, CBT is an angle which is a foundation for philosophy and it is comparable with the Stoic thinkers. For all the complex knowledge and models science some of the essential questions of philosophy are recurrent in human civilisations. I don't relate to people seeing philosophy as a waste of time and energy but it is also possible to go round and round in circles, and I am sure that I do this at times...

I wished to engage with Barticks at one stage because I saw that he did have some interesting but unusual ideas. However, what I found was that he insulted me so much, with his sense of superiority, or ignored what I had said. For this reason, even though the forum may be important for diverse viewpoints, I felt more relief than sadness in discovering that he had been banned.

Forming questions is an important part of philosophy. I often remember a point which you made once which was that asking the wrong questions is like premature ejaculation. To a large extent I agree but, at the same time it may be that reframing common philosophy questions allows for thinking from new angles as a way of lateral thinking.

Of course, when questions are asked it does vary as to how far they can be answered, especially in relation to evidence. For example, the issue of life after death cannot be answered completely with 'evidence' for or against. Similarly, the question as to whether the idea of belief for or against the idea of God being 'logical' is difficult to answer fully. Both logic and evidence are not complete in themselves, allowing for subjective interpretations in understanding. The issue of difficulty answering questions is what puts some people off philosophy, although taking that view is a rather restricted one. Also, questions in themselves can also be statements in themselves, as in the art of rhetoric.

The emotional satisfaction/comforts of logic may be appealing. I am not sure how this would stand in terms of reason and postmodern deconstruction may, alongside logical positivism, may have left a void of uncertainty. I am not sure exactly what a postmodern construction of logic would be.

However, it may involve the deconstruction of the core of assumptions about the rational. Subjective meaning may be important, as well as understanding the basis of logic and how it is constructed, especially in relation to the notion of rhetoric as the art of argument in the process of persuasion.