It is hard to know, but I would not dismiss the visionaries and outstanding thinkers who have paved the way with their insights. It seems to me that relativism has gone too far in deflating the whole quest for truth.

I saw that part of Pfhorrest's discussion as interesting because it is questionable whether we can find the correct answers to many philosophical questions. I know that you suggested in a discussion we were having in another thread that we could find truth rather than opinion. It does seem to be an underlying one in many of the threads. It does seem that so many of the issues in philosophy involve mysteries and throughout history people have sought to answer them differently. Obviously, each question is unique. I am inclined to think that, generally, we may only be able to come up with opinions, but that some opinions are far more knowledge based than others.

I have thought a bit about how you say that I do not speak 'with education for democracy.' I think that is partly because I don't really have much sense of being in a democracy. I am not really sure that I feel that people in society are listened to by leaders and politicians. I realise that we are not free to do exactly as we please and do believe that we need certain laws, but I do find the implementation of law a bit abstract in some ways. I don't really have much sense of any involvement in the creation of laws and social policies. Having a vote in England seems to be the only involvement, but I am speaking of English politics. I have been on a few marches, but don't feel that the politicians are very interested in those at all.

I have read some writing by Sacks but I am not sure if he has written on colours specifically. One thing I am aware of is that if I am feeling low, I feel that colours seem a bit wishy washy, whereas if I am feeling in great spirits, they seem to appear brighter.

The whole subject of seeing colour also falls into the area of ophthalmology. It seems to me that my mother sees colours differently since she had cataracts operated upon. To a large extent, visual perception of colour is dependent on the rods and cones and the retina, is part of the brain really. We know of people who are colour blind have severely altered sense of colour, but I wonder if we all see colours in exactly the same way generally, but this is probably an aspect which can be answered by neuroscientists.

However, the view of artists are probably relevant too. I remember it being so difficult to mix the exact shade of greens for certain leaves on trees. I think that there is plenty of khaki in the trees and I believe that camouflage, khaki designs was to enable soldiers to blend into the trees. Painting the sun in the sky is intricate too because one has to do it in such a way that the yellowish light does not blend with the blue to give a greenish effect. This is due to the way in which sun shows through the sky, but it is relevant to consideration of colour because objects often change shade by being seen through surfaces. Flouressent colour shades are interesting too, often created artificially, but they do create imaginary possibilities.

It is also interesting how the colour of blood changes from the blue of veins to red when a person bleeds, because oxygen comes into it. The colour of skin is interesting too because while people often speak of people being black or white, and of yellow as well, in actuality there is a whole multitude of shades and hues. Even within each of our bodies there are so many different areas of skin colour, mainly due to the thickness or thinness of skin in certain areas and blood flow variation.

It is also questionable if black is an actual colour. In some paint sets there is no black included because it is thought that it is possible to mix it from the other colours. When I tried this, I was not really satisfied with the result, because it didn't seem black enough. Another aspect arising when painting is the way the water gets discoloured by the dirty brushes, and as a child I used not to clean the brushes enough and this led to colours in the picture becoming a murky shade.

I am reading and thinking about what you said to me about democracy, but I think that you replied to @Pfhorrest but did not click on the name, but I have clicked it here, so that may make it obvious that the comment you wrote previous to the one to me was intended for Pfhorrest.

Bearing in mind that you may be more interested in the physiology of imagination, the ideas of Oliver Sacks may be relevant for your discussion because he explores many kinds of unusual phenomena.

You may not like my answer, but the area of study which I think is relevant is art, and possibly physics, and the paint palette seems the best place to begin exploring. I also know that the alchemists tried mixing gold to paint. Also, different mediums give different effects, such as the translucence and the stained glass windows were a means of capturing light in unusual ways. I also see imagination as being extremely important, but I won't go any further, because I think that you specified the question of physics and physiology. So, while I am interested in imaginary colours through blending and even mixing effects such as ink and pencil, you may be more concerned with the actual making of the pigments, themselves rather than the exploration on paper. The creation of colours in the mind is interesting.

I was interested to see your links, which go back a bit before I joined the site. I think that your project sounds great. The one thing that I am not sure about, however, is your suggestion that we can find 'correct' answers to many questions. I am not just saying that I disagree with it, but that it is a complete contrast to what so many other people on this thread are saying. I know that you are suggesting backing this up with 'common experience,' but many dispute this. Personally, I don't come from the point of view that knowledge is not possible at all, and I do believe in systemic ways of seeing, but it does all seem to be a very careful art of juggling and there are so many competing perspectives.

I looked at the post you referred to and it seems that the philosophy of levels is about viewing from a closer level in contrast to seeing from the larger perspective. I came across an associate idea when I was studying English literature at school, which was the idea of the microcosm and macrocosm as perspectives. This distinction has a history going back to Aristotle, but you are quite possibly familiar with it, and perhaps it is part of your own philosophy.

Yes, I think that the very first post I ever communicated with you on was you speaking about the idea of levels, when I began referring to the dance track, by Avicii, 'Levels.'

Strangely, I have found that some people do plan their lives in a very clear way. I have never felt able to do as much as I would like to, because I am aware of far too many waves. I think that a lot of people have felt life has been unpredictable since the time of the pandemic, but I feel that I am accustomed to it. Everything seems to change constantly, and I just try to go with the flow, and to the best of my abilities.

Do you think anything it has been a predominant idea that everything wasknowable? I would imagine that some philosophers and other thinkers in the past did think we could construct a clear picture However, this view has not been so clearcut since quantum physics replaced the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. If anything, I think that many do question the whole foundation of knowing, especially after postmodernism. I do believe that a lot is uncertain, but I do think a systems approach does provide some basis for sketching some foundations amidst our uncertainty.

I find that the more I try to plan life, with possible courses of action, something different to what I expected seems to arise. Perhaps it is captured in the quantum physicist Heisenberg's principle of indeterminancy. In the thread I started about a real philosopher, people were discussing a saying, possibly attributed to Socrates, about not knowing anything. I am not sure that it is helpful to go as far as saying that, but it does seem that we need to live with some flexibility because reality is unpredictable.

I was impressed with the book at the time but not entirely convinced by it. I think that fuzziness can be a way of brainstorming. However, I am more in favour of trying to gain as much clarity as possible. But, of course, we face so much uncertainty in life.

I recommend a book which I read a few years ago on the usefulness of fuzziness in thinking, by Bart Kosko (1993), 'Fuzzy Logic.'

Yes, I think that it is unlikely that Socrates said that we can't know anything. Of course, we cannot know everything, but to settle for just saying that we don't know anything would seem to defeat the whole purpose of philosophy. However, our knowledge is limited and life is unpredictable.

I do see 'standing around doing nothing' while the ship sinks as one of the dangers of the current philosophers. Also, saying we don't know anything, as discussed by a few people here, whether Socrates said it or not, doesn't seem particularly helpful. All this would seem like dismissing the philosophical quest. It seems better to try to put ideas together systematically, as you are doing.

I do think that it is debatable how much thinking is good for us. One model which I think is useful is Jung's one on the four functions: feeling, sensation, intuition and thinking. He sees the development of these as being varied in individuals, with most people having one more dominant and one or more less developed. He suggests that the ideal is to have all four developed. I do believe that my most developed function is thinking and Jung suggests that it is often that if that is dominant, feeling is the less developed. I am aware that I am more likely to say 'I think' rather than 'I feel.' But, I do try to work on my emotional side and have read a few books on emotional intelligence with this aim in mind.

I imagine that people who are drawn to philosophy are probably the thinking type. I know some people who don't enjoy thinking at all, and engaging in conversations which is analytical is not something they wish to do. I find thinking enjoyable, but sometimes find it hard to switch off and I am inclined to overthink at times. I also often find it hard to get off to sleep because I can't switch off my thoughts and worries. So, it is probably about getting balance. I listen to music and, try to meditate sometimes, to try to switch off thoughts. I do think that meditation is particularly helpful, but I don't do it as often as I probably need to do it. I tend to put it off and have not really incorporated it into my regular routine.

I think it resilience is extremely important because it so easy to end up to become broken down or defeated by suffering. Some people probably have more inner strength than others which helps them face difficulties. It may be a people who are used to coping with difficulties have developed this strength and other coping skills for endurance, whereas those who encounter a sudden difficult change may not have the inner resources to cope so well. However, while people may develop resilience through obstacles, it may be that too much stress, without enough time of calm, can be detrimental because most people have some limitations and they may reach breaking point.

Why do you think Cobra is trolling? I can't see anything wrong with her discussion, but perhaps I am missing seeing something.

You have raised an interesting discussion. I am not sure that the feeling of strong dislike and feeling hatred and that of wishing harm is absolute. Perhaps the latter is the exaggeration form of it and most people don't go that far. It could be that the more a person becomes accustomed to the mental state of feeling and thinking thoughts of aversion or hatred, that it becomes a possible starting point is hatred, in its meaning of wishing harm.

I think that hatred, in strong aversion or wishing harm to those with specific attributes is connected to psychological projective processes. Take your example of hatred of the fat person, it may be that specific undesirability of fatness as an aesthetic quality is projected onto the individuals who are perceived as fat. The example of hatred of fat people also raises the connection between hatred of others and hatred of self. I have worked with people who have eating disorders and it does seem that they often have internalised self hatred.

The whole area of self hatred is also of importance in thinking about individuals who self harm. I have heard people who harm themselves in ways such as cutting saying how the cutting is a way of purging themselves of the anger and hatred they have towards themselves. The whole area of self harm was expressed strongly in the culture surrounding 'emo' music culture. I think that emo culture is less strong now, but it is often during adolescence that people experience strong feelings of self hatred, and this is probably related to the sense of identity development. However, many people in adulthood do self harm and experience suicidal ideas in adult life.

Perhaps, it is worth me paying more attention to him. Which albums do you recommend?

I listened to it on my phone with a CD playing in the background, so I didn't give it full attention. I only know his album, 'So'. I easily twisted it in the direction of talking about evolution, so I am probably inclined to bounce from one idea to another. It may be a bit of a skewed philosophical method really. It is probably association of ideas.

I like the Peter Gabriel song about monkeys. Actually, my first philosophical shock was the theory of evolution because it was not what I had been brought up to believe. I was in a comprehensive school at the time and asked my parents to get me moved to the Catholic school. However, a few years later I discovered that some of my teachers believed in evolution. I think that my mother still believes the Book of Genesis account. I was also surprised to find out that one of the friends I went to school with does too, including the actual existence of Adam and Eve.

I expect that deconstruct and analysis are similar but deconstruction implies more of a situation of being thrown into an absence or suspension of meaning in the process, rather than just the detailed examination.

I do think that we are at a crossroads and probably there will be changes, some bad and some good. It is hard to know who will be affected and in what way. It may be that the people who are complacent and least expecting change who may be the most affected. The question is how much influence do each of us have? I had a certain amount of influence while working in health care, but I am not sure how much exactly.

Getting out of confusion is important, but the whole process of being in it and finding the way are central to understanding too. I am not talking purely in an abstract way, but do believe that I have learned so much from the chaos of taking ideas apart. In this sense, I embrace the postmodernist idea of deconstruction. However, I don't see the broken state as the end, but I am still putting the ideas together.

I think that confusion can be a starting point. We would not need to find the way if we hadn't got lost in the first place. I have got lost literally many times, including ending up taking a wrong bus and finding myself in the country wastelands in the night. The wilderness and wastelands are the precipice of discovery.

In what way do you think that philosophy stands out as the muse? Is it about analytic understanding?

As you are fairly new to the forum, I am interested to know your views of what it means to be a philosopher. I am not asking that to put you on the spot, just to give you a chance to speculate if you wish, as this is an open area of debate really.

I am not completely sure that fearing change is an actual sign that things are so bad. Perhaps it is the opposite. Currently, many of us have the economic stability and resources to look after ourselves. There are inequalities and some have far less educational opportunities. However, for many in our current time it does appear that we have health care to enable us to live as long as possible. I would not say longetivity is all that matters, of course, because quality of life is essential. However, I think that while there are flaws in health care, we are in one of the most privileged times of history. All that could be lost.

One problem which I see in England, and I am sorry if I seem to be not addressing America, is some ideas which I have seen such as specific plans to introduce sugar tax. The idea seems to be of plans to introduce specific measures to enforce healthy lifestyles. While I am believe that healthy diet is important, I am not sure that I would wish to see that enforced by the government. That would seem to be a form of totalitarianism.

The main reason why I am opposed to the eradication of the health care system which we have is that I think that it may end up being replaced by a far more oppressive one. I think that any new system which could be implemented may give less empowerment to individuals and be more coercive, and restricting of civil liberties and less favourable towards vulnerable minority groups.

I was read Bucke's, 'Cosmic Consciousness' fairly recently and I think that it is a fascinating area for discussion, but similarly I would not wish to derail the thread. The whole area of debate opened up by Gus's exploration of the ideas of Jaynes and associates ones, opens up fascinating possibilities for discussion, but I imagine that we need to be patient to wait and see what direction he wishes the thread to take. I certainly would not wish to mess it up.

I do believe that novelist are able to juggle and play around with ideas in philosophy. I have not read Hemmingway at present, but apart from existentialist philosophers such as Camus, a couple of the most interesting philosophical novelists who I have come across are Philip K Dick and Will Self. I find Will Self's critique of sanity as a fascinating exploration of the whole surreal evaluation of our understanding of reality.

You may find it strange, but I find the whole area of psychology of theories as one of the most interesting. I read ' Beyond Freedom and Dignity,' by B F Skinner and it is so interesting in the consideration of the whole question of free will. Perhaps, if I manage to get a copy of it I will create a thread on it. I do believe that it is a book which is central to the whole interface between psychology and philosophy. It was so central to the development of determinism as a philosophy. I actually find psychology to be a fascinating area but, unfortunately, my own experience is that it can become shallow when the philosophical arguments underlying it are not understood in their fullest depth.

Of course, I am not wishing to suggest that anyone should not see themselves as a philosopher. You probably know enough about me to know that I am not prescriptive and I believe that creation of identity for ourselves. I really began this thread when I began to think about what is a real philosopher when I was in discussions with someone on the thread about fantasy and decided I was playing at being a philosopher on this site.I feel that life is full of surreal games. But, this morning I liked playing around with the idea of being a shadow philosopher.

After reflection and interaction, I decided that my real area of interest was what is philosophy involve really. We spend time pursuing our interest in it and the various perspectives because it is so large a subject. However, we could perhaps strip it down to the basic central core issues. However, believe that people would not even agree, because it comes down to our underlying values. Really, I do think that every human being who exists has to work out some kind of philosophy in life. Of course, it is ongoing, although it is possible that many people don't change the views they are brought up with in many ways. I am not sure that everyone in the world enjoys thinking.

It is interesting that Wittgenstein suggested that a philosophy could be written in jokes. I have never been a big fan of comedy, but I can usually see the funny side of life. I think that sometimes philosophy can seem so intense and there needs to be some light side. I believe in the idea of life being tragicomic, and, often, daily life can be so surreal.

Yes, it is a tension between us fitting into the world mentally and the world fitting towards us. In many ways, it is easier to change our thinking than the world. But, even then, it surprisingly difficult even with psychology to aid us. I have never had cognitive behavioral therapy but have read books on it. It does seem to be like a philosophical approach really because it looks at specific form of examining errors in thinking. I have wondered why it seems to have remained in psychology and has not been used more as a foundation for an analytic approach within philosophy applicable to our daily thinking about life.

I see your point about the idea of the muse. I suppose where it gets complicated philosophically is whether muses exist or are a symbolic idea. I would be inclined to believe that the muses are parts of our personal psyches, in the creative process of arts, philosophy and science rather than as objective forces. Of course, that is in line with the scientific paradigm of current thinking.

It is hard to know sometimes how many the fault lies within us or outside of ourselves when we are suffering. We could ask what is suffering objectively? Here, I think that some might argue that physical suffering is more real than mental, but I would see that perspective as rather narrow. But, of course, in thinking about our own suffering, as the cognitive behavioral theorists recognize it is our interpretation of experience which leads to our suffering, not the experience. It may be on that basis that we can begin to create our own philosophical interpretations of life. We can draw on thinkers of the past, but perhaps we need to make our own unique philosophies to live by and to help us become people who have some influence as well. But, it is not easy, especially for the shadow philosophers, such as me.