A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright begins with asking this same question using Gauguin's words. It's not a bad read (though not groundbreaking or anything like that).

Anyway, the romantic image is that we lived as savages for thousands of years, until we discovered how fire and seeds worked and created civilization based on agriculture, and have been progressing since with the ultimate aim being the mastery of nature.

The actual evidence paints a different picture though, that of civilization developing arbitrarily and non-linearly, mostly based on environmental pressures. Early on, ruthless protection rackets, organized by petty warlords, kept people working the land and having plenty of babies in population-farms called cities. Without having real goals to fulfill by their own effort, people turned to various other secondary activities. Over many generations, people became domesticated ("civilized"), and as a result their ability to take care of themselves has atrophied. People require the assistance of an elaborate social structure that tells them what to think and do, which renders them care in exchange for assimilation into and maintenance of this structure.

The individual is nothing without society, completely helpless. The behavioral difference between modern man and his ancestors is akin to the difference between a dog and a wolf. Humanity is defective and aberrant to the natural order of things. The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude.

Read Ellul.

Strangely, as much as I like Gaugin' formulation, I don't have any romantic views of early humans living as savages. I don't really know how Gaugin thought about human origins and progress, but I do believe that ancient peoples, such as the Egyptians, were extremely sophisticated. I think that it would be a mistake to see our civilisations as being 'superior'.

If anything, I take the view that, despite our findings about early civilisations through archaeological studies, it is extremely difficult to step into the worldview of the earliest people. I am familiar with Julian Jaynes' 'The Origins of the Bicameral Mind' and see this as pointing to the possibility that early human beings' mental processing may have differed from that of humanity now.

In thinking of the future, it is so hard to know where we are going, and on what scale human beings will survive. Will we destroy ourselves on a mass scale through war and exploitation of the environment. It could be that devastation occurs on some level, with pockets of humanity surviving. As for what these human beings may be like, it is hard to know. Will they live beyond the lifespans of the current people, benefiting from the movement of transhumanism or not?

I am sure that 100 years ago people would not have necessarily envisioned life as it is today, in its diversity. So, it is extremely difficult to know what the future has in store for humans, and what life may be like within different parts of the world in about 100 or 200 years time. It feels strange saying this, because we can look back on centuries of history, with the varied developments, but if we think about life since the first and second world war, it seems that changes have been so dramatic and accelerated. It makes it hard to know what will happen in the future, and whether progress will simply continue at the rate it has within the last century.

I fear that we are at the end of civilisation as we know it, but I hope that is just my own fear. For all we know, there could be a whole panaroma of history awaiting us, although my own intuition is that we are the end of some kind of cycle.

Despite having written about history and the future, I am not certain that Gaugin's statement was meant in just this way. I feel that he may also have been thinking about how individuals find themselves and view themselves in relation to the world, and historically. In this way, his three questions are more about our own significance in the grand scheme of life.

The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude. — darthbarracuda

That appears to be the case. The original object of philosophy was to enable us to attain freedom, especially intellectual and spiritual. Hence Plato's allegory of the cave showing that we are not just prisoners of society but also of the way we perceive ourselves and the world we live in.

'Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?' (Gauguin)

Do they have any relevance for the way we think about our lives? — Jack Cummins

I think they do. These are perhaps the most primordial reflective questions our species still amuses / agonizes itself with after some hundred or so millennia. Religion and myth, culture and science, philosophy and politics are rooted in their own peculiar ways in Gauguin's trinity. And every answer attempts to be the final word and bury each question forever; of course, these questions are undead, or glitches in the matrix of human discursive cognition – akin to what Freddy says: "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." Grammar = ego (i.e. neurotic knot of atman).

NB: Only the second question has ever interested me philosophically as I find answers to the others as obvious and ineluctable as static between AM-FM radio stations.

Actually, I think that it was really the second question that really interests me too. I am interested in knowing what it means to be a human being. This is a question which goes beyond all the complexity of metaphysics. It does seem that we have developed as complex beings. The religious people have explained in terms of us being in between animals and angels. The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found.

The only reply which I received last night was about the past and the present. That was not really the way I conceived the thread, so I think I will edit the title, because I was hoping that the thread would be one of reflection on what it means to be a human being.

I have edited my title to 'What Are We? ' This is the second question in Gaugin's formulation:' Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going'. The initial discussion on the thread was connected to the past and future, but I did not really intend the thread to simply be about considering history or the future of humanity. It is important to be aware that the question ' What Are We?' arose in the middle of the two others. But, I have narrowed down the focus, as an experiment to see if this specific question will be a starting point for any reflections.

I think, Jack, that the question "What Are We?" is, as it were, the root of all metaphysical speculation and all the rest are just branches, leaves & fruit on the tree. After all, the ancient Vedas teach Thou art that – how far back before writing does that insight, or understanding, go. Or Dao. Or Aboriginal Dreamtime. By the time 'Greek philosophy' gets going so much deep understanding of "what we are" had probably been lost forgotten and had to be reinvented with each generation or so of 'metaphysicians'. Even if all we are (as a sapient species) is merely a breath on a mirror, what can we make even of that? Etc.

It is strange really because yesterday I was wondering whether to write this thread or one about metaphysics. I was out reading, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and that seemed connected to the end of the discussion I was having on the thread about 'what are thoughts ?'
The final part was when you were suggesting that it was best to avoid thinking about supernatural entities, and you proposed naturalism. I began thinking how some of the ways in which ideas are complicated by ideas about the supernatural.

I went on to read Ayer's book yesterday and it looked at some of the ways in which metaphysical ideas about any transcendent reality get in the way. He argues that this is not just about saying that such a reality does not exist, or about telling people what they should believe. He is arguing more for the view that such metaphysical assertions are speculation. He argues that this 'speculative knowledge' is problematic as an underlying argument.

Ayer's approach for thinking is known as logical positivism. I am sure that it has been scrutinised by other people, but it is a starting point for considering the question : What Are We ?

I have always found Plato's cave to be a useful starting point for thinking of the human condition. I do believe that we are imprisoned in our own experiences, shut out from direct access to knowledge about ultimate reality. I think that it is too easy to start believing that the shadows we and mistake them for being much more than that.

We come from space.Our existential elements first appeared in universe and then combined in a humanish way. We are animals with high minds abilities. And I don't think we necessary have to go anywhere particular. We will just continue to exist as long as we can. Existance is where we allready are. We don't have to move anywhere else

I don't understand what you mean by saying that we come from space. Perhaps, you can explain your idea a little bit further.

All humans existential elements first appeared in space. In planets, asteroids etc. Water, oxygen,molucels everything. We are spacedust as they say. No one can't deny that

The Darwinists have looked more at the way we have evolved from animals, although the missing link has not been found. — Jack Cummins

Come on now. This is just a mistake. Don’t fall into this reasoning. There is no “missing link.” All evidence points to us evolving from primates, and we are in fact primates ourselves.

This does not, however, explain everything. But let us be very careful about critiquing science.

The question of what we are, as human beings, is one of the oldest ones and clearly still relevant today. How we answer that question — whether explicitly in philosophy forums or in academic halls, or tacitly in how we formulate goals and conduct ourselves — obviously has large implications for humanity’s future, because the decisions of our political and economic leaders are ultimately grounded in such answers (again, not always explicitly or consciously). So you’ve touched on one of the “big ones,” in my view.

My own take in answering this question is to look at what we do— and not just in special occasions, but as Heidegger says in our “average everydayness.”

If we want to describe an object’s function, for example, we look at characteristic use. A hammer can drive in nails or open paint cans, for example, but the latter wouldn’t usually be described as its function— because it’s not typically used that way.

Likewise for human beings, I think we have the tendency to privilege abstract (rational) thinking and otherwise conscious behavior as not only our defining property (related to language) but also our basic “function” — and this is, in a sense, a mistake. Not that it’s not true, but that it overlooks what’s truly typical. Because when you look at characteristic “use”— viz., what we typically do in an average day and in average moments — we apparently aren’t very rational or even very conscious, at least in the way the traditional Western view would describe.

Rather we seem mostly unaware of various phenomena, not only our internal workings (like digestion or breathing or heartbeating) but also our bodies, emotions, feelings and sensations, reactions, attitudes, actions and thoughts. Most of our thoughts aren’t abstract but rather “junk,” just noise, in this average state. Most of our actions are habitual— automatic, unconscious, even “irrational” in a sense. Personally, the practice of meditation shows me quite clearly just how much is forgotten, overlooked, taken for granted, and otherwise ignored in my life.

So then the question becomes: when you look at habit and automaticity, or unconscious behavior, what picture of a human being emerges?

Descartes says (more accurately) “I am consciously aware, therefore I am.” This is at the start of modern philosophy and science. But to me this is like saying “I’m awake, therefore I’m alive.” What happens in sleep? Are we not alive? Do we cease to exist? No. Likewise, if our activity is largely unconscious, does this mean “I am not”? No. In fact, as I mentioned above, it appears as if there’s more evidence to suggest we’re acting mostly unconsciously— and so perhaps it is the sum that grounds the cogitare?

Food for thought.

. First of all ... friend ...

. Your first question ...

1º - "Where Are We From?"´

. You're from here ... You're from the whole ... You're from the eternal ... You're always from now ... You're always been rejuvenating ... You're not a conclusion ... You're a process ... this is why ... Man is a mystery ... this is why ... Man is perfectly imperfect ... You're from God ... You're from yourself ... because ... you're God ... and God cannot be perfect ... God is as well ... perfectly imperfect ... that's why ... there's evolution in nature ... that's why ... there's dynamism in nature ... that's why ... nature is ... that's why ... Man is ... He is a being ... because ... he is always being ... He is a continuum ... Man is in the Here-Now ... and ... the Here-Now ... is the timeless time ... is the form of no form ... is the thought of no thought ... where else could you have come from ... friend ... ?

. Your second question ...

2º - What are we?

. Please ... meditate carefully in this zen parable ... apart from any thought ... it sums up all the so-called scriptures of the world ... It's the most important reading ... if you do it properly ... you may get an insight ... which may permit you to ...

. It is not an answer ... it just ... kills all the questions ...

. It is from Hakuin Ekaku ... the zen master ...

The Lion's Roar:

ALL BEINGS ARE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING BUDDHA.

IT IS LIKE WATER AND ICE:

APART FROM WATER, NO ICE, OUTSIDE LIVING BEINGS, NO BUDDHAS.

NOT KNOWING IT IS NEAR, THEY SEEK IT AFAR.

WHAT A PITY!

IT IS LIKE ONE IN THE WATER WHO CRIES OUT FOR THIRST; IT IS LIKE THE CHILD OF A RICH HOUSE WHO HAS STRAYED AWAY AMONG THE POOR.

THE CAUSE OF OUR CIRCLING THROUGH THE SIX WORLDS IS THAT WE ARE ON THE DARK PATHS OF IGNORANCE.

DARK PATH UPON DARK PATH TREADING, WHEN SHALL WE ESCAPE FROM BIRTH-AND-DEATH?

THE ZEN MEDITATION OF THE MAHAYANA IS BEYOND ALL OUR PRAISE.

GIVING AND MORALITY AND THE OTHER PERFECTIONS, TAKING OF THE NAME, REPENTANCE, DISCIPLINE, AND THE MANY OTHER RIGHT ACTIONS, ALL COME BACK TO THE PRACTICE OF MEDITATION.

BY THE MERIT OF A SINGLE SITTING HE DESTROYS INNUMERABLE ACCUMULATED SINS.

HOW SHOULD THERE BE WRONG PATHS FOR HIM?

. Your third question ...

3º - Where are we going?

. There is nowhere to go ... There is no Hell ... There is no Heaven ...

. If you do it ... in this Life ... you won't be here anymore ...

. If you don't do it ... in this Life ... you'll be here again ...

Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going ', is a title of a painting by , Paul Gaugin, in 1897, when he was suicidal, — Jack Cummins

A few things that seem intriguing about the late Paul Gaugin ( :flower: :death: ):

1. My own experience with so-called suicidal ideation has been wholly and unequivocally about "me, "myself" and "I". I find it very odd that Gaugin was more of a "we" kinda guy. Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? What factors could've influenced him to take what is at its core self, self, and self, and turn into an inquiry about others? :chin: Gaugin's self seems to have, uncharacteristic for a man experiencing the blues, expanded to encompass all and the three questions he asks seem to be reminiscent of the Holy Trinity all united in one final, ultimate one which is,

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide — Albert Camus

2. I find it both exhilarating and also terrifying that if one has to, in a sense, engage in true philosophy one must be willing to descend into the dark and unforgiving regions of the human psyche which are but outposts of Algea & Thanatos. Reminds me of the sci-fi story, Breeds there a man...?

I find it both exhilarating and also terrifying that if one has to, in a sense, engage in true philosophy one must be willing to descend into the dark and unforgiving regions of the human psyche which are but outposts of Algea & Thanatos. — TheMadFool

Your psyche may be dark and unforgiving, mine is generally lighthearted and easy-going. I'd recommend avoiding Camus and other miseryguts authors.

Suicide is indeed an interesting philosophical issue. I have experienced suicidal thoughts, but don't think that I would ever do it. However, I had 3 friends who committed suicide, 2 while I was at university and 1 a couple of years later, so this lead me to think about the nature of suicide. None of them told me that they were suicidal and there does seem to be a lot of truth in the idea that the people who are really planning to kill themselves don't talk about it.

The experience of having 3 friends commit suicide was one of the main reasons why I chose to train in psychiatric nursing, partly because I thought that the training would be useful in case I had any future suicidal friends. While working in nursing I have come across many suicidal people, and often when people were seen as a suicidal risk they used to be observed at arms length, night and day. I have known a couple of people who were observed in this way for many months, or even a year. Often, the individuals did not feel that this addressed the issue of their suicidal feelings, and some wished to talk to staff members observing them while others didn't.

Apart from medication, a lot of people do seek therapy for suicidal feelings, and it does seem that art therapy is an intervention which some people find to be useful. This may be because the people can explore the dark depths through art.

But, I am definitely of the belief that it is helpful to live with the dark depths. One of my favourite albums is 'Darklands' by The Jesus and Mary Chain, because it is just so cathartic. I do like dark fiction too. I know some people who think that it is best to avoid such territories, but, even though they may try to, it doesn't always mean that they can always do so. Of course, there are probably a lot of people who don't ever encounter such territories, because life gives them constant joy. They are very lucky, but I can definitely relate to Camus's 'The Myth of Sysphisus', and another book which I find to be a very worthwhile read is Alvarez's, 'The Savage God', which looks at suicide in literature. Nietzsche's is also very relevant too.

Your psyche may be dark and unforgiving, mine is generally lighthearted and easy-going. I'd recommend avoiding Camus and other miseryguts authors. — Daemon

We must imagine Sisyphus happy — Sisyphus

.

Not all doom and gloom I suppose.

One idea which I have come across in relation to your idea of us living almost unconscious is a view that we need to become more awake, as suggested by some writers, including Guirdjieff. He spoke of how a lot of people live in an almost robotic level. I think that many people do not even stop and consider the question of what are we? Perhaps, philosophy can be a form of helping us to become more consciously aware, because it involves critical discourse and looking behind the surfaces of day to day experiences.

This may be because the people can explore the dark depths through art. — Jack Cummins

@Daemon disagrees.

I think that many people do not even stop and consider the question of what are we? — Jack Cummins

Well done them! It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, and generates the sort of nebulous waffle we see in the present discussion.

It seems to me that some people get to the point where they ask such questions, as what are we, and others don't. For those who can't relate to this kind of question, I am sure it does seem like a load of waffle. But, I find so many soap operas and aspects of entertainment others enjoy to be a load of waffle. Even on this site, I see threads which are very popular which I can't get into at all. It just shows how we vary so much.

Soap operas and entertainment aren't trying to do philosophy though.

It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, — Daemon

That has engaged the greatest minds throughout history. I’ll go with them over a random internet person.

If this question is stupid, every question is stupid.

What would constitute a satisfactory answer to the question?

I realise that philosophy is so different from soap operas and light entertainment. Bearing in mind that you think that I am probably focusing on the wrong question, I am wondering what do you see as the importance ones which we can benefit from exploring?

What is it you want to know when you ask "what are we?". What would be a satisfactory answer? How would you know you were getting nearer the truth?

Perhaps, philosophy can be a form of helping us to become more consciously aware, because it involves critical discourse and looking behind the surfaces of day to day experiences. — Jack Cummins

I think that's the basic idea. Everyday life forces us to become engrossed in the material world, physical needs, and related concerns, and this leaves very little room for higher forms of awareness or experience. But we're more than just physical bodies. We've got an intellectual and spiritual side that mustn't be neglected. Philosophy tends to restore some balance as, I believe, do dreams and also certain spiritual techniques such as meditation and contemplation. So, traditional philosophy such as Platonism does have a spiritual dimension that can have much to offer if we learn how to use it correctly.

There have been many answers. You’re in fact living with a tacit understanding of what a human being is. In the West, since around Aristotle’s time, human beings have been defined as the zoon logon echon. In the medieval period, we were creatures of God. Etc.

“Satisfactory” has nothing to do with it. What’s a “satisfactory” answer to health— to what is healthy? Maybe we should throw out the field of medicine, since that question is “stupid and vague” as well, by your standards— after all, there’s no “satisfactory” answer.