Your interpretation of my thread question is interesting. Going back to the time of Nietzsche and Sartre we were looking at two philosophers who depicted angst and despair about the human condition. This was in the context of the collapse of Christianity, and, of course, Nietzsche was a romantic.

A couple of weeks ago, I was in a discussion of Nietzsche's ideas in the context of the idea of my idea of stepping into philosophical danger, which was then called 'the red zone of philosophy' by
@TheMadFool. This led into a discussion of the nature of nihilism and whether it was a red zone of being a dangerous territory within philosophy.

In itself, the philosophy of Nietzsche is part of romanticism and some philosophy of despair can be seen in that context, but also with a view to being a part of potential nihilism. I wrote this particular thread based on my own thoughts about where we are going in philosophy. Part of my own thinking was about a potential end to philosophy in the context as philosophy becomes more reductive and many people see the answers to philosophy as having been solved. Some of the responses I have received do suggest that philosophy is possibly opening up to new horizons beyond science.

My words deadend and wasteland were based on ideas of potential cultural collapse, and the term 'wasteland' was based on T S Eliot's poem. Also, recently I wrote a thread based on Gaugin's idea in his painting title, 'Where are we from? What are we? Where are we going ?', which he in a state of suicidal despair, painted. The whole question of where we are going can open up feelings of despair individually, and I think that this can also open up a cultural sense of despair. In some ways, this despair may be evident as much in entertainment which has no inherent meaning, just as much as in that which is outrightly expressing nihilism. We have had postmodernism and even post truth, so what is next?

There is also the idea of the end of history. Also, there are fears of the future of humanity too, and whether human beings will destroy themselves. Many feared the end of the world at the end of the twentieth century. While this did not happen, we still have the big environmental issues unsolved and the question of whether humanity will be able to draw upon science in a positive way.

It does seem that we create 'reality in our own path' as far as I can see rather than there being a clear 'absolute reality'. However, it is likely that many people would like to see their own view as the definitive one rather than recognise the role of interpretation of the facts of the senses and of knowledge. I think that it is important to be aware of the such limitations of knowledge about reality, as we try to formulate the most accurate interpretation based on the facts which are available for our thinking.

Thanks for your detailed reply yesterday. I never replied because I developed an upset stomach, which was probably related to my not being able to get out of bed. I am sure that energy and entropy are interrelated. Also, work comes into it, probably because we have to have things to work on, to give us purpose. So, we probably need obstacles as well as suffering to keep us going, rather than us becoming subject to inertia.

I think that you are correct to bring in the role of government as this with the whole underlying power structures are likely to affect the course of philosophy and ideas in general. We have moved into the information age, but I think that it is hard to predict the future of humanity. We don't want where science and economics will lead us and to what extent religions will play a part. It is, however, most certain that political factors will play a large role as throughout history knowledge and politics are interconnected in such a deep and complex way.

I think that often the choice of words such as energy, spirit and God are preferred ways to referring to the ultimate underlying reality. I don't really see the need to choose one of these above all others. But, that is my own particular perspective and I am quite aware that choice of naming this reality is one of great debate and importance for most people, not just philosophers. In addition the naming of this reality appears to be the starting point for so many other speculations which have farreaching effects in personal, cultural and political life.

I think that part of the issue is that every individual thing is part of something else, or in some ways interconnected to everything else, and that applies to each person, or even parts of ourselves. This seems to be about us as living systems.

However, there is also the division between us and the inanimate. I am not sure how absolute this, because there are blurry areas, like stones and crystals. But we most certainly talk about them as things, but the animate and inanimate do interact in some ways. I will also mention one of the most 'woo' ideas, the whole idea of crystals having the power to heal. I can confess to having some in my room, but that is because I like them, but many believe in the power of amethysts and even have them put into rings. Of course, a slightly different aspect of this is quartz, which we rely on for battery power.

But, it does seem that apart from living alongside other human beings and other life forms, we exist alongside material structures and objects. I often lose things and it is as they are hiding, metaphorically speaking. Jung spoke of certain books falling from the shelves at certain times appropriately, like synchronicities. I experience this frequently, with books and CDs almost calling out to be read or played, but, of course, this process is bound up with my consciousness.

But sometimes it does seem that we are some kind of web larger than ourselves. I find that this happens a lot when I am using computers. Some of what appears to be happening is about reading meanings into things, like patterns. I was once in a big email exchange at work, and, just as I sent off an angry one, the sky went dark almost immediately and crashes of thunder came, and the deputy manager looked at me, smiling, and said, 'Jack, look what you done to the weather.' Perhaps, the immanent storm had been implicating on me. Even within psychiatric hospitals, staff often spoke of a link between full moons and psychiatric emergencies, with
people becoming violent. So, there may be hidden aspects of life and things, and we could ask what is anything?

Perhaps a good title for a book would be 'The Philosophical Striptease Show.' I am not sure if it would be philosophy discussion, or fiction about subcultures of people who have dropped out of society and their life struggles...

I think that some philosophies do seem to strip everything down to the point where there seems to be nothing left at all. I think that is my basic feeling about the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner. I think that it is a fine line between the stripped down philosophies and those which build up such complexities, such as Spinoza. I have started reading a book of his writings but have not got very far with it.

I think that the language in which he thinks and the concepts seem to come from such a different perspective than that which I am accustomed to. But, it is probably the case that the way we build up pictures or models of reality is so variable, but I am wary of those which seem to strip down or break it apart completely, because it does seem that we may be left with nothing.

I am having one of those days when I am struggling to get my act together, so I didn't follow the gist of your argument. Perhaps, you could spell out the way in which Einstein was relevant, or what point he made?

I do wonder about energy beyond the idea as a concept in physics to that in experience. I was thinking about that today because I found it such a struggle to get out of bed today. I am sure that is partly to do with physical factors, such as not getting enough sleep frequently and also to do with psychological motivation.

But, it did make me wonder how energy works in life, because it is related to the lifeforce. It is probably also connected to will, because if someone lost will, it would result in giving up, or complete inertia. Of course, most of us have days in which we have more energy than others. But, while I lay there before getting up eventually, I did think how this seems related to the spirit within, because it is on this level that we move through life and realise our goals and dreams.

Regarding the question of whether computers ask questions I do have one thing which really puzzles me. If I have my music on and I am holding my phone, the name of the music artist or group I am listening and the song title come up on my phone. This happens even if it is track on a fairly obscure album. I really don't know how that works, and what artificial intelligence is behind this process.

The question as to whether there are infinite questions is a good one. I think that many recurrent themes in exploration, and it is more about slight variations. However, I suppose we are able to ask questions about specific matters, like certain theoretical ideas, comparisons and developments.

I used to wonder more about time and infinity more than I do now, because I feel that as concepts they are so interrelated with other aspects of life and reality. But, time is mysterious. Generally, people seem to feel that time is speeding in their subjective experience. During the last year I often feel as if it is slowed down, but that is probably due to lockdown and because I had to move twice. Also, I only joined this forum last year, but I feel as though it has been about five years. I think that this is because I have felt that it has lead me to do so much thinking. What is your experience of time?

You may be right, that with podcasts, videos and so much information we are far from being at a deadend at the present, at least. It may be that this is part of a process of making philosophy far less obscure. This site in itself is so much more about live debate 24 hrs a day, so it may be an exciting time really, and perhaps philosophy and the future of ideas depends on us to some extent, as parts in the chain in the process.

My phone battery may run out at any moment, but I definitely don't think that I am automaton. I think that there may be an unconscious, but I do wonder if it has some underlying principles. One of the first books which I read shortly after leaving school was, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White. That was a fairly complex book, and I was a bit upset when my mother told me she threw it away because it was tatty because the book, especially the title was my one of the biggest ideas which influenced me in thinking about some underlying force, whether it is called God, energy or the unconscious .

I think that the interest in philosophy, including debates in science, includes the whole spectrum of the layperson and the academic. I am not sure which has the most power in the current system, let alone the cultural and political aspects of the future.

Ultimately, I think that the purpose of such questions probably comes down to survival, individually and for humanity. Personally, I am just about surviving, but I have found the examination of self and life to be the important aspects of this quest.

I do agree that the way in which philosophy survives in the technology of our times opens up questions and many more questions. Sometimes, I think that many look to Wikipedia as if it is a living philosopher. I do believe that almost anyone can go into it and edit. Of course, this site gives us the scope for expressing our views. Otherwise, I would probably just be reading alone in my room. So, it is hard to see directions, for better or worse, and the whole spectrum of artificial intelligence and how all this will lead to results in the world of ideas. I think it such an unknown realm, daunting and exciting, which is why I raise it, as a way of thinking beyond deadends.

I am not sure to what extent science stands out or is the dominant paradigm. There is a whole thread devoted to the praise of science, but apart from whether we praise science or not, it does seem to come down to how this is viewed and evaluated within knowledge and its practical applications in life.

I am not convinced that the idea of energy within quantum physics is not worthy of greater philosophical speculation. I think that your discussion of all these areas are so open up ideas for exploration, even though I can't always access the links you provide, which is probably due to signals, an aspect of reality which on which we are starting to rely upon. However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy.

Thanks for your ongoing participation. What I am wondering about is what is energy exactly. I am sure that there is the formula, as expressed in physics. However, I wonder if even this is limited because it is about formulas and models. I am not trying to be awkward, but all models seem to be models. I think that we need to refine and develop them. I am also aware that you are probably in a different part of the world, so that you are probably awake when I am sleeping, which probably means that we have delayed responses. I wake up and see your ideas and by the time I have drunk a couple of coffees you have probably gone to bed. However, I do appreciate the ideas which you have contributed to this thread discussion.

I have read read some of Kahneman's book, but not all of it. I think framing of life and reality is important, although I am not sure that idea has not been discovered before.

As for mystery, I am not sure to what extent it can be ruled out or incorporated. I am definitely in favour of demystification, and not just speaking of the ineffable or the unknown. However, I do think that each of us, and the various models of thinking are so limited. I really see it as being more of an adventure, in which any of us can search in life and in ideas, in order to look for the most innovative ways of seeing, in science, arts and all disciplines. It is partly about individual perception of reality, but this is not entirely separate from the cultural pursuit of knowledge.

The question of practical really and philosophy is an interesting slant. I have to admit that I am so much more philosophical than practical, relying on microwave meals and watching my piles of washing accumulate, because I am so busy reading my books and writing on this site. That may seem a bit trite but I do think that the way in which we juggle the practical and the philosophical is an important aspect of life.

It comes down to the way we live our lives. I do believe that many push the questions of life out to the picture, or settle for the easiest answers, while focusing on the practical realities of life. I think that Western culture is going in the direction of focusing on practical tasks, but I wonder if there will some kind of resurgence. It may even be happening now, because the pandemic has turned so many lives upside down. I am really saying that people may think that they don't need to think about the big questions, but I am not convinced that we have reached that deadend completely.

I see your point about the hollow men as being those who have been through trauma, but I see it as being more metaphorical, in ways which apply to us all in some ways.

I am definitely not asking for any final answers because we don't know the future, but can think of it as a speculative area. I do think it applies to other areas of thought including the arts and humanities.

One obvious example to me although it may be remote from the topic of philosophy is about music. I know so many people who barely listen to music beyond the 80s, or beyond the time of Oasis and Blur. I know people who are in their teens who come from that perspective. It is based on the idea that most of what can be created has already been done before.

I am sure that philosophy is far more complex than rock and pop music, but we have had the rise of postmodernism and beyond, so I am interested in what comes next and, what can the future bring? Will it be novelty, or more synthetic forms of understanding?

Sometimes this site is like a battleground. I remember a few weeks ago when I couldn't sleep and I looked at my phone and found a heated debate going on in a thread I had created. I wondered what is going on here?

Actually, I have more fights inside my own head than with other people. I am not sure if that is better or worse than disagreeing with others. Of course, online disagreement or even by texts is so different. I find it easier to fall out with friends by text than in real life, and on a couple of occasions, I felt that I had text wars. I am saying that having said that I have more fights and arguments with myself than others. However, I do believe that in many disagreements a lot of it comes down to projecting ideas or attitudes onto others, and attacking them on the basis of such projections..

I do agree with your likening of philosophy to painting but that is partly because I enjoy painting. But, about a week ago, in some thread or another, I said that philosophy without clear use of concepts and language is like trying to paint a picture with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water. I do see it as being like painting pictures because it is a bit like creating new, unique pictures which are often just a little bit different from other ones from the past.

However, the whole way past and present come together is not just about seeing the newer ones as more accurate, but just about the picture in the present. I think that it is organic, and you speak of it with reference to thread creation. I am sure that each person would like to think that theirs is the best possible way of seeing. It is most likely about taking things apart and recreating them, or reframing questions and thoughts.

I am glad to see you back on the site because I had missed your presence in the last few months. I have to go out for an appointment this afternoon, but I am hoping to reply to you and the other people who have made comments later today.

I think that your question of how can we account for the arts and philosophy is extremely important in our understanding of reality. Ever since I began thinking about philosophy of reality, I have thought of this in connection with the idea of the collective unconscious. However, I am aware that Jung's idea has been seen as lacking in philosophy. I wonder if this could be because he did not explore it fully enough as a philosophical concept. He was rather blurry in seeing it as connected to metaphysics or as being an aspect of nature and biology.

One major query which I have is where do creative ideas come from? I know that Plato speaks of ideas of Forms, but even these seem like abstract entities. However, individuals have specific ideas and ways of seeing, which are experienced uniquely. I think that this is partly on a phenomenological level and I do plan to read more in this field, and I do wish to read Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'. But, at the moment, my own understanding is that unique perception and creativity do seem to point to the possibility of reality being multidimensional.

Anyway, if you, or anyone else reply, I will look at it later in the day, because I have a medical appointment this afternoon (and I have some comments to reply to in the thread I started yesterday.)

I don't want to end up in hospital or in a grave yet, although I remember on the first week when I began working in a psychiatric hospital, I dreamt that I was a patient, lying in a dormitory bed. But, that aside, I think that it does happen that people lose touch with physical reality. I didn't know that you (Madfool) consider yourself as a physicalist, but presume that you mean that that is the most ultimate reality. I definitely think that it is primary and as the starting point for something more. But, I am not sure whether some underlying invisible causes come into play. I think that this is at the core of any understanding of reality.

I am glad that my thread has come back to life and replying to yours because it really goes back to the basic question. Some of the thread focused on reality and is it solid, even discussion tables and that is because in many ways we are are born into and die in a physical world. In some ways, we are even trapped in the physical world, because we have to use physical means to do things. Even as I communicate on this site, I am reliant on my phone and my fingers. I remember the time when I had a broken wrist, and it was the right one, I spent 6 weeks struggling to do most things because we rely on physical reality, and our bodies.

I think that the way I see it is whether that is all there is. I am not necessarily suggesting hidden realities, but going back to what you wrote earlier we are embodied, with an interior sense of self, but at the same time, part of something larger. So, understanding reality is complex, because there are different facets, and it depends on how we put them together in our understanding. Also, reality is infinite too.

I will write an answer a bit later this morning when I have got up and had breakfast. I often write replies lying in bed, which probably doesn't help me in writing ones of quality...

Okay, I will probably need to work harder if I want my threads to work. I think that a couple of people have suggested that often I am inclined to listen to others rather than put my own views forward. I think that is partly my own approach in life, but it is something which I need to work on.

I think that my own picture of reality is based partly on quantum reality, but I am probably also interested in the reality of the world within us too. I know that you don't dismiss the numinous aspect of life, especially in the realm of the arts, but I think that many people do miss the numinous side of life, whether they are religious or not. I do see this as being the essential aspect of reality.

Also, you say that it is hard to pin me down, but I think that is also true of reality too, because it is constantly changing. Also, in a way it includes everything, including every theory and every philosophy that exists at all.

I do think that each person is like a miniature part of the universe too, and that it goes back to the idea of the microcosm and the macroscom, which is a tradition going back to Plato. I think that many people nowadays don't recognize the value of the human being, or of a connection between the internal world and a larger reality. I think that is probably because people stopped believing in the idea of a 'soul'. I am not saying that there are not any problems with the idea of a soul, going back to dualism, but, at the same time it does seem to me that what has happened is that many people have come to disregard the interior universe and underplay its importance whatsoever.

I didn't include you in my reply above, but you contributed well to the discussion on my thread and I would like my thread to continue because I do believe that what is reality is is a valid philosophy question.

I was pleased to see that you had put an entry in my thread, but, then disappointed that in wishing to respect my thread you wished for the discussion to move elsewhere. This keeps happening and ends up with my thread not continuing at all. In particular, my thread was going fine until @Banno suggested to @ Manuel that he started a new thread on metaphysics. This meant that became the replacement for my thread. I was a bit disappointed with the way my thread ended, and I am sure that @Banno believes that my whole thread and all my ideas are complete rubbish but I do wish to continue the discussion with energy and spirit too.

Of course, I could move to any threads which break off from mine, but I already wrote one in the metaphysics thread and no one replied to me. I would still like to continue discussion about reality with you or anyone else.

I think that part of the problem is that people are not accustomed towards philosophy, although there are probably more people interested than one would imagine. I know that if I see a book in a second hand or charity shop by some obscure writer and don't buy it at the time, if I go back a couple of days later it has usually gone. Also, when I go to libraries, often the books which I am looking for are out, so some people are interested.

But, I do think that if philosophy is to survive it will probably need a certain amount of demystifying to happen. Also, I think it would be too much for anyone to start reading writers like Spinoza and Wittgenstein without having read a certain amount of philosophy previously. It would be jumping in the deep end.

But, I guess we all try to do different things. I haven't had any lessons to drive a car whereas most people are desperate to do this.

But, yes, it does seem that Stephen Hawking was the best selling author that not many people read. I struggled my way through though. I think a lot of people wish to study science, but I guess that is partly related to career pathways.

But, it may be that philosophy will remain a minority interest but I do think that the issue is to what extent will it survive at all. I think that it partly depends if it can be a bit less abstract and obscure in some ways. But, even if a lot of people don't read it much I think that the questions will still remain as long as human beings survive.

I think that apart from the focus on science, the division between academic and popular is sometimes too absolute. When I go to shops the philosophy and science books are often grouped together under the category 'smart thinking'. These are mostly popular science books with some philosophy ones thrown in. If it is a bigger shop there are usually a few classics. I have found it much easier to get more academic books online. However, I often feel that sometimes the division between the academic and popular is still too strong because some of the philosophy ones in particular, seem to come from the perspective of imagining that readers have barely any knowledge or be written for specialised readers, and I looking for ones in between. Of course, reading the classic writers is often best, but it is useful to read others too.

I think that it is true that many turn to religious beliefs instead of philosophy. Perhaps this is because it is the easiest option. There are far more churches to go to than philosophy discussion groups. Yes, the philosophers like Nietzsche recognized this. Also, I know that in England I was not taught any philosophy at school, but was taught religious studies. It may be that some religious studies tutors go into philosophy but I went to a Catholic school and was not taught anything about any other religions at all, and had to read for myself. Also, the science I was taught did not touch the philosophy questions, or I would have probably found it interesting. But, I do think many people are left in a lot of confusion because what they have been taught is superficial.

Most people I know think that philosophy is from the past or is rather obscure, I think that this has been due to the way it has been in the hands of the academics. In England, this is particularly centralised in Oxford and Cambridge.

However, even though I feel that friends think that I am ridiculous reading philosophy books, and even more so for writing on this site, with do feel that it is sometimes possible to get into discussions about some of the questions at times. I think that philosophy has inherited a bad image though and we live in such an image conscious society. In a way, psychology is a bit trendy in I have lost count of the amount of people I have met in the last few years with psychology degrees.

But, I do think that part of the problem is that some of the writers, especially from the twentieth century did not write books which appealed to many people. I do believe that this needs to change. I also think that many people choose not to study it because they don't think that employers will be particularly impressed.

That is a bit reassuring because while I am aware that there are some who view philosophy and thinking outside of science it often feels that is not the dominant way of seeing. I am not just talking about people on the forum, but include bookshops sections which I visit and a few other sources, which place such an emphasis on neuroscience.

I don't believe that the sciences have all the answers, and I also think that the arts and literature have a lot to add. The reason I wrote this today was I was reading Iris Murdock' s writings on literature, and I do think that sources such as literature provide areas for exploring meaning. When the emphasis is on the physical sciences, above all else, it seems to me that philosophy becomes so flat.

I am definitely of the view that philosophy will always be of importance because, and I feel that it is useful to think about how science draws upon the arts. I do see keeping the emphasis on the various disciplines as being essential, or else thinking becomes so lopsided.

It is extremely important and hard, I do not to ask the right questions, because they form the basic framework for thinking. We are so lucky to have a forum which allows us to ask questions. At times, the questions which we ask are likely to involve repetition. But, I do think that all the new and subtle variations open up slightly different angles for thinking.

Of course, it is hit and miss and sometimes involves asking stupid or the wrong ones. What I find it that I often ask one question and just get a few replies, but on a few occasions, the basis of the replies give me scope for asking another question, which often seems to make sense to more people. So, it does involve experimentation and improvisation. I also believe in taking risks and asking awkward questions, and asking the ones which many may wish to sidestep or avoid completely.

I did get extremely wound up, so I am about to go out. I must have read too much John Bunyan, and I am saying that because I grew up fairly near to your location, Bedford.