As the world (as we know it is 'being dismantled, there no universal consensus about morality and what is acceptable. This was drawn from postmodern analysis and culture relativism. However, that doesn't mean necessarily that ideas of human rights and economic ethics are insignificant and meaningless. What do you think about this?

I agree that so much is historically traceable. The privatations of the Thatcher years were significant.

It is extremely important to note how life expectancy may be decreasing, especially in certain areas. I am wondering how far this problem which is occurring will develop, especially for certain vulnerable groups. Also, so much has changed after Covid and the cost of living crisis. More children are living in poverty increasingly. Quality of life for people in Britain, which used to be a wealthy nation, is diminishing rapidly, with some so much more affected than others. The gulf between the rich and poor is widening and this probably corresponds with poor health.

I agree that initiatives need to be started and ones that are innovative as opposed to punitive. The problem may be that the needs of the people, as opposed to those in power, need to be addressed.

The blaming on gays and foreigners are part of the problem of unhelpful propaganda. More recently, in England the blame is on the unemployed and people who are disabled or unwell mentally. It is a targeting of those who are less powerful.

I am aware that many may view the 'nanny' element of welfare as an imposition, especially with the idea of taxes. Nevertheless, the English welfare state has been modelled by so many other nations. In Western society, the emphasis on individualism and loss of community, means that without such welfare many would just die on the streets.

This is starting to happen in England, especially as deaths of the homeless are not recorded any longer. Invisible underclasses are developing. Of course, many have become dependent on the welfare state, used and abused it and stretched it to breaking point. But, one critical factor is what happens now when so many jobs are vanishing as tasks once performed by humans are being done by machines. How are those without work, especially those whose work abilities are restricted by health conditions expected to survive?

The problem is that ideas like the young should stay away from GPs are such sweeping generalisations. The young can become very sick, not just mentally but physically.

Also, the notion that only the sickest should be using GPs involve a culture of fixing very severe problems. If problems are identified early, far less extreme treatment measures may be needed. There is also the idea of health promotion, but this can sometimes lapse into mere prescriptive advice rather than looking at underlying needs and issues.

Getting to the route of inequalities and poor health is going to be a key factor. The idea of staff going door to door in deprived areas seems going but it may be a bit hit and miss. Some people will not be home and it misses the need to address those who are seeking help. There was the idea of walk-in clinics and part of the problem was that they were overused. This points to GP surgeries and the NHS being at breaking point, especially in densely populated areas.

One aspect which is vital is for the link between deprivation, poverty and poor health to be addressed fully. Those with lack of money are less able to care for themselves fully, especially if they are struggling to buy food which is healthy and other essentials. This comes down to the lowest rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I hope that you do not get pneumonia. What governments don't seem to be paying attention to is the way that social conditions affect mental and physical health. In England, there is a drive to get people back to work but without attention to why they are getting sick. But, I won't say too much in this specific thread other than to say that the role of the philosopher may be to look in a more analytical way, drawing together ideas from various disciplines, with clear arguments.

It's probably not a topic that I would pursue for this particular activity in though, as I think that it watching too much news which contributed to me getting unwell recently. Not that I wish to side-step politics. I nearly started a thread on it while in hospital but decided it would probably make me deteriorate if I did it at this moment. All in good time and right place. If anything, I see the question of so much trouble as raising the issue of collapse or potential transformation. But I am sure that I have said this many times in various threads. Of course, it is an area which you, or someone else could tackle for this activity in a unique way.

I certainly see problematic aspects of theism, especially the whole emphasis on 'sin', including original sin and sexuality. I come from a background of being troubled by fundamentalist Christians preaching to me.

As for the idea of 'magic' and metaphysics that is a little different. As you and probably others on the forum are aware, I navigated a lot of my angst over religion, not by atheism or theism but by the writing of Carl Jung. Some have criticised Jung for being an atheist and others, for him being too sympathetic with the idea of 'God'. The problem which I see with Jung is something ambiguity between an emphasis on the 'supernatural' and 'nature'.

Of course, Jung's ideas were developed in the last century when the dialogue between science, religion and science were in need of so much reconciliation. This may be what is happening and still needed in 21st Century thinking. One book which I found to be important was Lyall Watson's 'Supernature', which was written in the 20th Century, because it looks at the concept of the supernatural, demystying it. The supernatural, and magic, is often seen as being separate from nature. This may be the problem and that magic is about patterns and connections, and there being more to sensory (or extrasensory) perception than Cartesian-Newtonian thinkers have acknowledged.

The idea of cosmic consciousness is also compatible with Taoism. It was during Christendom, that a firm definitive idea of believers vs non-believers grew, with an emphasis on outlawing heretics. Then, this definitive division was stepped into by science, especially the debate between materialism and idealism. Those who see beyond these, whether they call themselves atheists, theists, or whatever, may have a more expansive approach to the questions of 'truth'.

Your thread topic seems a worthy area of discussion. I come from the perspective of having been raised as a strong believer in God, which I questioned so much. My current position is more of a non-dualist, seeing theism and atheism as deficient and that doesn't mean agnosticism necessarily.

I do have some sympathy with Tillich's idea of 'ground of Being' and see it as compatible with Eastern metaphysics, especially Buddhism. There is so much black and white, definitive attempts to answer the issue of God in a clear cut way,. In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. Tillich's idea of God as 'ground of being' has more depth than anthromorphism, because it goes beyond the idea of God as a Being as disembodied. His thinking may also be compatible with the thinking of Schopenhauer and Spinoza. It goes beyond the neat boxes of labelling as theist/ atheism of tick box culture.

Hello, I am extremely worried about human civilisation collapsing, with the current world leaders we have. I have been depressed about it since November and December. At first, I was it was affecting my mental health and I dreamt of the end of civilisation a couple of months ago. Then, I got ill physically and have ended up in hospital with a chest infection, on oxygen. I also still feel worried about civilisation collapsing, while lying in hospital.

If I do write an essay for this, I think, it may be hard to formulate this topic into a clear philosophy argument, as I saw by the response by @RussellA. Part of the difficulty is translating experience, the anecdotal and intuition into the formula of philosophy arguments. This may be the biggest challenge of the competition, as opposed to literary writing in creative writing activities.

I am extremely pleased that such links are being banned as people kept posting them to me. I think that it led to some viruses on my Software and this has been one of the reasons I have steered away from the forum a bit because there has been so much linking to other sites and to 'You Tube' recently. I didn't come here to watch 'You Tube' and videos, especially as some take a while. It feels like an obligation to watch it before replying and I prefer reading.

Also, I prefer if people can summarise ideas as part of an argument, as opposed to just including what appears to be a chunk of undiigested ideas Sometimes, people don't back them up with an argument and it feels mere chunk of undigested information.

As far as links to other threads, including much older ones, I am unclear whether links to this site will be acceptable or not. I have never done this, but I do know people often do this because they don't wish to repeat themselves. Of course, it is possible to refer to threads by name and give the page number of a specific post. If someone is interested enough, it is easy to search for past threads.

Yes, a critique of academic elitism may be worth exploring. I am not sure whether I feel up to it, but you never know and, maybe, someone will.

Actually, it may be hard to defend the view that ' All you need is Love' in 2000 words. I am already in dialogue with a friend, or ex- friend about it. The reason why I add'ex-friend' is because in lockdown he decided that he is in ceasefire from people. He has self-diagnosed himself with autism. He sees all forms of empathy and kindness as false and about 'people pleasing'. His own focus is on getting what he wants out of the system.

This Is fairly Nietzschean, but it may be hard to challenge. The 'social contract' may be a possible source of argument, but it may not be holding up in a time of societal fragmentation

I do agree with you really as a clear independent position may require thesis. . The only problem is many on this forum have studied philosophy at postgraduate level and beyond. Also, there are many who are published writers, so the standard may be extremely high. I have noticed in the last year, that the forum has become more academic. That is good in many respects as opposed to 'armchair philosophy'. The only danger is that it may become elitist.

Yes, imagination and creativity are possible topics. The other brainstorm ideas I have are the relationship between philosophy and psychiatry, as well as the autobiographical experience of philosophy.

I am wondering if others may wish to brainstorm too, but I realise many may wish to keep their ideas to themselves, for fear of others pinching them. Also, please note that, I am not disclosing what I am writing about because I have mentioned a few and others may choose to tackle them too. I also have some othier ideas and may come up with more before June. I hope to contribute but too much stress may prevent me. (Around lockdown I had so much more time and life seems more difficult than I have ever known in England, which may stifle so much creativity).

The topic of 'All You Need is Love' may be a good one because so much trouble in the world may possibly be killing love and compassion. This may be a sweeping statement but many people I know seem to be becoming far more self absorbed and self-centred after the pandemic and in the context of the cost of living crisis.

As having difficulty choosing a topic, I do wonder if having a theme (or several) would have made the activity seem less daunting. At one point, I remember that I'magination' was suggested but I think it was dismissed. Anyone could choose to use it as a prompt although it may be seen as unimaginive to do so.

Do you think that some prompt topics or questions would help more people to participante? When I go to a creative writing group some prompts are given and everyone finds it helpful in getting started. I am not suggesting that the use of the prompts should be obligatory, but just wonder if it would help rather than being in front of a blank page, with the whole field of philosophy for choice.

I do empathise because I have thought about topics and rejected these later. It is so hard because so many philosophy issues are or have been tackled in threads.

Also, with an essay it seems that there is a need to come up with an independent view. I had one idea but have since decided it is a bit sensitive to tackle on a public forum. If I do write it I would have to write it with care, which would be more important than using artificial intelligence to edit it.

I definitely hope to contribute to the activity as a writing challenge, but it feels a bit daunting. At the time thè competition was posted it seemed such a long way away but we are in late March already. I will enter if I have something specific to say, and at the moment I am waiting for inspiration.

This is an aspect of UK life which I find so worrying and leads me to believe that the UK is becoming an experiment in authoritarian totalitarianism. The biggest problem is that such interventions are on the basis of 'suspicion of fraud' as opposed to proof of it. The DWP makes so many mistakes and this is going to be a potential area for great disaster and a means by which the state can just take anyone's money.

So many individuals and organisations, including banks are opposed. Nevertheless, it is being pushed through by the current government alongside an agenda of many reforms aimed at giving increasing power to the state.

I have looked at the thread and the book sounds interesting. I particularly wonder about conspiracy theories as myths which are influential. Of course, they compete with so many myths in the context of relativism.

At one point, the myths arising from Christianity were so strong. In particular, the idea of apocalypse had so much influence, including on Ronald Reagan. This all came into play with so much expectation of the end of the world at 2000. The end didn't happen but 20 years on the world seems more fragile than end. The reality of climate change may hover as the major threat of an 'inevitable'. I remember when discussing the postmodernist ideas of 'end of history' in conjunction with the threat of the end of civilisation on this forum some saw such an end as almost inevitable. Part of the problem is that so many different systems of thought and worldviews contribute to mythic beliefs in 'doom and gloom' impact and this may be having a negative impact on intersubjective thinking and actions in the world.

Your way of differentiating between predictions and self-fulfilling prophesies is worth considering. Predictions are careful calculations. The potential to turn them into actions is more complex, unless one has a sense of the inevitability of destiny. For example, a nihilistic approach to what is likely to happen may affect it, as in hopelessness and giving up. It may involve the fight or flight mode and the way we face obstacles and adversity.

I am speaking of the transmogrication of fear into monsters on a metaphorical level. It is like inner demons. But such forces have a numinous power in effects.

Do you not think that the mythic has any power on outer life?Of course, every human being only has so much power and influence.

One aspect of the influence is positivity and negativity in the social sphere. I know that others respond so differently according to my own mindset. If I am in a negative mood it impacts on my relationships and outer life. Mindset may have a real affect in influencing so much which happens in outer life. It also has the power to demoralise or inspire others. It creates ripple consequences.

I am a believer in Jung's idea of synchronicity and have written on this site about it. The idea of synchronicity is about meaningful connections rather than causal ones. The patterns are observed by human consciousness. I first came across it when I was about 16 or 17 when I read Jung's autobiography and found it extremely helpful for making sense of inner experiences.

The inner world may be an important source and connection to imagination, whether this is seen as God or in a more secular view. I do have some sympathy for what Plato describes as the 'daimon', or higher self. You seem to dismiss prayer, prophecy, which alongside medication which may be essential aspects of the finetuning of subconscious depths. I am a little surprised by this as you write fiction which draws on mythic dimensions.

My understanding of prophecy is that it involves seeing patterns and correspondences. For example, astrology was about seeing reflections in the stars. I am a great believer in synchronicity. I also see parallels between inner and outer reality rather than dreams as being simply about the personal. We are all aspects of the cosmic web and are interconnected as systems within systems, the macrocosm and the microcosm.

I know that positive psychology is a strong movement, alongside cognitive techniques and mindfulness meditation. This is in contrast to psychoanalytical based therapies, which dig beneath the surface for past traumas. Both may have value and be complementary. Perhaps we need to rise above negativity into the positive but awareness of the negative sources is important.

It is probably the same with news, which I find a source of stress. We need to know what is going on in the world to be prepared but not let all the problems in the world become overwhelming.

One thing which I find is that some negative experiences may be an important stage in development. For example, I have a virus (which may or not be Covid) and it may be nature's way of allowing me to take time out and reflect. Even accidents may be about wake up calls from one's higher self, and I think that was how Bob Dylan viewed his motorbike accident many years ago. When I have broken bones, the recovery period can be seen as a way of drawing upon one's own inner resources in a positive way, which is about working with 'black swans'. For example, when I broke my elbow a couple of years ago, it was during this time that I rekindled my love of drawing which I had lost for about 5 years.

@Hanover (I have had to reply this way as the reply feature on the site won't work for some reason.)

l will try to keep positive but do struggle to do so. I swing from extremes of negativity and positivity generally. I actually think that I have developed Covid in the last couple of days, which doesn't help. That is why I haven't replied to some of the posts above at the moment...

The idea of 'confirmation bias' works better than 'prophesy' in some ways. That is because there is a lot of seeing so much as reflecting one's inherent beliefs. The one aspect of it as self- prophesy is as less static than confirmation bias. Belief may spiral and change within the processes of prophesies translating into what becomes manifest.

I can see why you see the idea of self-prophesy as evoking a conception of 'magic'. Ancient civilisations spoke of the 'evil eye' and 'voodoo'. Such perspectives were too concrete but that is not to deny that it is possible to kill through the transmission of negative subliminal messages . Of course, this would be the extreme end of a spectrum of less dire influence.

As regard to 'hope' versus 'faith', hope may be like the spark amidst darkness as a way through. I just wonder if it is too wishy washy and empty, like in Pandora's box. Faith is more affirmative about a mindset of achieving desired outcomes.

It sounds as if you think that the idea of self-fulfilling prophesy makes sense in connection with life choices. I do too and see it as where phenomenology and existential choice come together.

Your idea of 'codes', especially in conjunction with history is also pertinent. It is about subtext and subliminal messages. It can be used by leaders and organisations as a form of manipulation, in advertising and the manufacturing of news. It is an aspect of 'dark psychology' and politics.

I am sure that many may dismiss the significance of such 'dark psychology' as of importance as a worthy philosophy concern. However, I see it as central to individual wellbeing and the future of the world. It can involve breaking of personal spirit and will. Too much 'bad news', especially in the form of news and social media may give rise to nihilism. Also, it may lead to 'mental illness', and physical illness, which has some psychosomatic basis.

I originally wrote this and shelved it in the lounge shortly afterwards, as I saw my post as incomplete. However, I have brought it back into the main section as I received some helpful replies. I also updated the title for clarity.

I was going to use the words 'faith and fear' in title today. However, that might lead to some confusion because I noticed a new thread on 'what is faith?'. That thread is extremely different from mine because it looks more at faith in a religious context, as opposed to fear vs faith on an existential basis.

Beliefs, including self belief, have such a determining role. It is central to a sense of empowerment and autonomy. This is recognised by the cognitive behavioral thinkers.

The whole idea of mindset was also expressed in the thinkers of the tradition of the 'law of attraction'. This tradition may be dismissed as 'folk wisdom' or pseudoscience. This may be related to lack of experimental proof and dismissal of what works, or does not, pragmatically.

Your consideration of the idea of prophecy and prediction in connection with the nature of 'self- fulfilling prophecy' is very important. It does go back to the Old Testament times and comes with an element of belief in divination. Even those, such as Nostradamus, who predicted so much trouble around the time of the millennium, before and after, were believing in some kind of precognitive experiences. Many people do speak of such experiences, including precognitive dreams. There is the tension between such imaginary speculation and more 'scientific' aspects of prediction.

The factors involved in prediction which you mention are very important. But one book which I have found to be of significance is 'The Black Swan' by Nichols Taleb. His understanding of the irregularities of uncertainty is how the 'black swans' can be drawn upon and weaved into action positively. This may be an important element in self-fulfilling prophesy because it involves translation of potential uncertainties into action. This may be about intentionality at the level of working with detail in real life for desired outcomes. This may be done consciously, or occur unconsciously in a mindset of fear.

You say that there are no situations whereby faith has any power personally or collectively in bringing about desired ends, which does not make sense to me. Every time a desired end is thought of and actioned it involves a creative leap of faith. This is not bound up with religion but may involve some sense of being able to shape destiny. On the collective level, protest movements and the entire radical spirit( such as the 60s counterculture) may have been about a culture of faith inspired changes.

j
Yes, the term self-fulfilling prophesy is questionable, and, may in itself be open to philosophy scrutiny. It does arise in connection with fear and a culture of fear.

The issue may be about how the 'black hole' state affects causality, especially at the level of action. I know that I am guilty of 'black hole' negativity. Currently, I have been in a state as a result of reading too much news of Trump, Velensky and so much doom and gloom. Some of what I am reading may correspond with real threat, although there may be an element of disempowerment going on through a cultural manufacture of doom and gloom.

There is indeed a difference between the happy and unhappy person. The person in a state of doom and gloom may bring others down through negativity. On the other hand, the person who is happy may inspire others. Part of the area which I see as complex is the issue of whether ignoring the potential fear is about faith or blind faith, of burying one's head, hiding from troubles. Thinking about potential problems may be a way of thinking about them critically, or about magnifying them. This is the dilemma which I am concerned about and wonder about the issue of 'self- fulfilling prophecy' at the level of action and causality.

It seems like artificial intelligence has intervened to remove the video. It often seems to be used as a way of censorship as well as commerce. One of the most controversial commercial aspects is the UK banks upcoming plan is for banks to scan individuals' bank accounts. The aim is to flag up people on benefits who may have committed fraud. However, it focuses on people at the lower end of the power scale as opposed to those in powerful positions.

Also, about a week ago I saw an article in 'The Guardian' about potential consciousness and sentience in artificial intelligence. I was going to write down the references but couldn't find it again. What the article was arguing was on the supposition that it would be possible to do so. It went on to state that it would mean that such forms would be able to suffer like animals. Therefore, to 'kill them' or destroy them would involve ethical concerns. So, it seems that the machines would have rights.

The issue of difference which I see between your approach and mine is that you are trying to formulate arguments on the basis of logical propositions. In contrast, I am trying to understand the philosophy of religion by viewing it in the cultural and historical context in which it developed. They are such different perspective and I do not dismiss the validity of looking at logical propositions but, equally, the hermeneutics underlying the philosophy of religion have a critical role in consideration of concepts.

The quest for the historical Jesus is one which may get lost and buried in the history of Christianity. There were probably many Jesus's and many wandering Jews. We are left with the Gospels which were written many years after any specific person. Also, the accounts were dependent on what became part of the canon of texts accepted by the early Christian Church. This excluded texts, especially the ones which were recovered as Gnostic. The idea of Jesus as identical with God? rather than as having a Messianic role, is within this historical and literary context.

My understanding is that it was the Christian Church which decided that the person spoken of as Jesus was the living incarnation of 'God'. This was bound up with the idea of the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

What is questionable is about the person or figure in the Bible's view. He definitely saw himself as having a mission but did not necessarily see himself as the incarnation of God. He spoke of himself as the Son and spoke of a Father in heaven. However, this does not mean that he saw himself as the only Son. In the Christian story everyone could be seen as sons and daughters of God. However, I am aware that my interpretation is different from mainstream and fundamentalist accounts as I see the Bible in a symbolic way.

While usage of linked sources and images may be an expansion of creativity, there is the question of how far this could go. If linked information is overused the essay could end up constituting a book and be time consuming if readers were expected to read too many links.

Also, regarding images, it is possible that it could turn the essay more into an art competition. It is also does depend on software for all of this. I am certainly not wishing to be negative and say that links and art should be avoided. However, if there is an expectation to include these, it could make it complicated.

People have varying amounts of time to commit to the activity, even though it several months away. Of course, all sources, even quotes, would need to be acknowledged in order to avoid plagiarism. There is also the question as to whether a bibliography is or not included and this may depend on the form which the author chooses. There is also the question whether links and images would be an aspect of appreciation of the 'essays' or detract from the writing itself. It may be that each person has to navigate this and make choices rather than guidelines being too prescriptive.

What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial in ethics may be one of the most significant aspects for the future. There is indeed the the question about whether the artificial will develop it's own independent thought in the field of ethics? In speaking of ethics, my working definition is of it being the science and art of how one should live.

Considering this involves the question of the core basis of ethics and ethical values. There are varying approaches, especially the dichotomy between deontological and utilitarian approaches. If it is about smart thinking the artificial intelligence is likely to go in favour of the utilitarian. This is where some fear that AI will make sweeping choices, such as to bomb in order to protect the good of the greatest number. Or, supposing it made a judgement that humans should be destroyed as they have done so much harm and that a reset is needed?

A lot comes down to how the artificial is programmed in the first instance. For example, the core values may reflect cultural biases, even the religious or secular codes and ideals of its software and programmers. If it is able to achieve independence would it roll out a new set of moral rules, like those of Moses' tablet of 10 commandments? Also, there is the issue as to whether different artificial systems would agree any further than people.

If the independent ideas of AI were to differ significantly from those of the human, which would be followed? Humans would probably fall back on appeal to the emotional basis of ethics while the artificial may go in the direction of impartiality. It could lead to war between the humans and artificial. Or, alternatively, it could lead to a greater impartial understanding of aspects of ethics, including new insights into the dilemmas of justice, equality and freedom. How such ideas evolve in the artificial is a central factor in what may happen in this respect.

It is true to say that the criticism of artificial intelligence should not hinge on its potential use by leaders. They are separate issues and the only reason why they come together is that political leaders have such a significance role in determining their development and use. What may be helpful is the general development of ethics surrounding artificial technology as an area of focus in society, because it would open up dialogue for everyone. Of course, the leaders have more power and responsibility but if it considered as being about ethics it is less about moaning and blaming. The field of ethics may involve more impartially than pinning it down to politics, because it is about moral responsibility.

I do agree with you that the ideal would be artificial intelligence allowing for humans to do rewarding work. The problem is that what is happening is far from that because politicians are skewing it. This is why the relationship between humans and machines is vital. It is possible for the toxic elements of the human and that same potential in the artificial to come together in collusion. That is the specific danger and, the question is whether or not humanity itself has reached the level of consciousness and self awareness to unleash the power of the artificial.