Perhaps the struggles we have are an important part of our experiences. If we don't know pain, how can we know joy? It may be interconnected and that our struggles and confusion are an essential aspect of life experience.

In many ways, I think that life can be seen as a gift because I offers potentials for some kind of pleasure, appreciation and rich experience. I am not sure that life before, or after this life is essential. Perhaps, we should look towards the positives we can find, especially if this is all we have. It may be that life can be seen as a burden or a gift, and this may present a challenge to our thinking, but the answer at which we arrive may affect the quality of the life which we have.

We are indeed limited, looking beyond ourselves for meaning. But, such a view may contribute to our seeing of ourselves as if reality is from the top. We may be at the bottom, or the base of experience, but this may be the most accurate position, especially if we have no evidence of higher beings. So, it may be that the view from the lowly perspective of the human being is the best vantage point, as far as we able to conceive reality.

It is so easy to subscribe to crazy, shallow ideas, on the internet, whether it is conspiracy or otherwise. Right now, I am aware that I am competing with other threads, with topics of a similar nature. I probably write answers which are almost essays at times. It is likely that no.one wishes to read such answersm

Often, I feel like giving up in the expression of ideas. It is likely that my thread will fizzle and die, especially as a thread has been raised which is so similar to my own, and my own may be seen as inferior. Sometimes, I feel that I have reached a deadend myself. I think that the concept of the deadend and the wasteland are ones which are relevant for thinking about the personal life, as well as on the cultural level and the ongoing development of philosophical ideas.

It is so complex. We could ask what is anything?

I am sure that the answers offered by the arts may be seen as inadequate in some ways, but we could argue that poesis is a way of a certain expression of truth. But, of course, this works for some, and is only one way of expressing. I believe that the arts are important, but that is about individual expression and the cultural aspect of human existence. I do believe that in some ways we have reached a deadline or impasse, but it is probably a situation from which we can find our own way out.

As much as I believe that philosophy is important, it may be that philosophy has its limitations. I t may be that the best artists will leave the visions of many philosophers as extremely lacking and that philosophy will really become an abstract worldview, left behind in the aftermath of science, but with nowhere left to go.

I may start a thread based on my own reading of Harari's ideas, but I am certainly not in the position of thinking that scientists have the ultimate word on truth. I think that we are an extremely critical juncture in history. We have so much information available to us, coming from the sciences and the arts.

On the other hand, we are at a time in which there are so many aspects of history which are uncertain. We have the pandemic, climate change, and it is so hard to predict what is going to happen next. This presents a challenge for individuals and for humanity, if the collective term still applies too.

My own thread was formed in trying to look at philosophy and the way in which this can be reconciled and put together in an individual way and in terms of knowledge. Philosophy has been through postmodernism and the deconstruction of meaning. However, we can ask what will happen next. I am asking about the future of philosophy, but do see this as being interconnected with developments in history, culture and politics.

Yes, I think we are, but your thread is going in a different direction possibly, so it will be interesting to see what happens. You wrote your reply in the night when I was sleeping, and, then you created your own thread. I believe that you started your own thread and you may well come with a whole fresh perspective, which I cannot offer at all.

I have a certain amount of philosophy reading, ranging from existentialism, postmodernism, as well as questions of philosophies of our times. My own interest is more in the direction of the arts. But, I am concerned about the direction humanity is going, and how this is interconnected.

I don't know how much sense of humour you have but ever since we discussed the philosophy of the solidity of tables I keep recalling a certain scenario. I had a manager who ordered a table and I think that she got her metrics wrong. A van arrived with an enormous table, and it would have needed to be chopped up because it was so large that it could not have fitted into a room. So much for the philosophy of the solidity of tables...

I have looked at your idea again, and I am sure that it has so much to argue in its favour, but the question which I would have is how could such an idea have for thinking about reality, in terms of living. But, I am not saying that your answer is wrong, but simply that the nature of reality is a question which is probably connected to the meanings of individuals. In some ways, we may all ask this question and it can only be answered in a way which makes sense to us individually.

I am a little disappointed that you did not answer my reply because I thought that we may have so much to discuss. Instead, you have started a thread, which appears to be based on my own questions. Have you done this because you think my own thinking is inadequate, or are you coming from a different angle entirely?From your initial reply, I thought that we had some common ground to discuss.

As for myself, I am interested in the future of philosophy, and see this as being interconnected with the question of where humanity and culture are going, but I do understand if your own interest is very different from mine. I believe that we are at a crossroads, for better or worse, and I am trying to think about this, and how ideas will lead us through..

I am not disagreeing with you, but don't know how to interpret what you are saying. Perhaps, you or someone else can point to where this leads, because, at the moment, it is leading me to feel rather confused...

So, do you see painting as being part of the process of formulating philosophies? I most certainly do, because it seems to be such a complex mixture of looking beyond the objective to the subjective. We may have reached a crossroads in the history, but I am not at all certain that the spectrum beyond the objective and subjective has been met, even the intersubjective, especially in the realm of the arts.

In my own experience, answers to questions give a certain basis of knowledge. However, they often generate more questions, so it sometimes seems like an unwinding of coils. But, I am sure that some people get more definitive answers. It may also depend what we are looking for in the first place. Some may be looking for solutions and some may be looking for ideas for contemplation. In that sense, I think that the mindset of the questioner has a critical role in determining the answers.

I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your question, but find it to be extremely interesting. We have internal states and states which are connected to qualia. In most instances, hallucinations are distinct from usual experience because they are based on perceptions not evident to others. For example, if I swallow LSD or a packet of morning glory seeds I may experience a reality different from other people. However, I am not sure if this is altered perception or a new experience, in terms of qualia.

It is complicated, as evident in Huxley's writings, which are based on Bergson's ideas about 'mind at large.' It is involves qualia, but probably also involves questiona about the whole way in which consciousness works.

Your arguments seem good, but I am just wondering to what extent can we rely on physics? I think that it is extremely important, and do try to keep as up to date as I can, given that I don't really come from a physics background. I think that physics is extremely important, but even the ideas of physics need to be taken apart, like all ideas, and any perspective of knowledge. That is not to undermine the importance of the ideas but to approach all knowledge with a spirit of questioning rather than mere acceptance.

I do agree that our perspective of reality needs to go beyond the universal to the specifics. We may make generalisations, but we also need to understand and analyse the specifics and the unique as well. These specifics should probably be not treated as the irregularities, but as key aspects of any larger picture of reality, or else we will really have a gross caricature based on generalisations.

I am wondering about the conspiracy of woe and how that relates to the idea of the posturing of the Nietzschean nihilist. Meanings have been broken down, and often we stand alone, with no gods to turn to, but simply our own selves, and the reflection of self in human relationships.

Our own worldviews and philosophies are based in that context. We, as individuals are looking back on the history of ideas, with a view to moving forwards, breaking down, assimilating and looking towards future possibilities.

I do have one reflection about superstition based on my experience of working as a psychiatric nurse. I worked with a consultant psychiatrist, who was as far as I could see so based in 'the real world" in trying to point to delusions, almost outlawing any ideas which went against the norm. However, oneday, I happened to remark to him that the ward I worked in was so calm, and he got angry in a serious way, remarking, 'You will jinx it, saying that.' I did not challenge him, because he was so much more senior to me, but I was left wondering how people who seem so grounded in reason and avoidance of delusion, may often be prone to a certain amount of superstition.

Your reply is fantastic but I think it probably fits more into the thread I wrote about the future of philosophy and wastelands. Where is philosophy going, in connection with culture? I realise that all the themes are interrelated, and I am probably experiencing a bit of tangled threads syndrome on account of this. I am currently reading 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow ' by Yuval Noah Harari(2016), but we are looking not just at what is reality is, but what reality are we creating?

I am certainly not trying to argue against the use of reason and I do believe that it is extremely likely that irrationality is the worst enemy, for thinking about reality, and in the realities we create in real life.

I do think that for some people 'all that matters is money and work'. However, the future is so bound up with ideas. The book which I have begun reading today is 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow', by Yuval Noah Harari (2016). I am at an early stage in the book but it does seem interesting so far in thinking about knowledge for the future. I will just throw in one quote for you and others, for thinking about the future of ideas:
'Modern science and modern culture has an entirely different take on life and death. They don't think of death as a metaphysical mystery, and they certainly don't view death as a the source of life's meaning. Rather, for modern people death is a technical problem we can and should solve.'

The author's use of 'They' is a bit ambiguous but I think he means both science and people from our culture. However, what I see as being important here is the whole way in which the interpretation and understanding of ideas is important. This leads me to believe that philosophy is central to culture and interpretation of human experience. The author of the book was writing before the time of the pandemic, in which the emphasis in global thinking has been about fighting to solve death as a 'technical problem.'

I hope that my comment makes sense in relation to your comment, but what I am trying to argue is that the 'deep questions' are truly with as ever, and that philosophy can have a vital role, rather than being seen as obscure.

Your post highlights the way in which knowledge exists in the form of ideologies, as argued by Marx. In the past, philosophy and religion often were interlinked through the ideas of the Greeks being brought forward into the ideas of the church fathers, Kant and many others. Gradually, as science became more predominant philosophy lead the way in the understanding of secular ideas.

As it is now, scientists have made so much progress, but the arts and humanities have not been thrown aside. There are so many obvious divisions such as science vs art, religion vs secular, academic vs popular ideas. My own view is that philosophy needs to lead the way in sorting out all these dichotomies, rather than become as you say dumped into the 'strange and the curious", although, they will probably 'survive no matter what'. I think that neither you or I believe that philosophy will because extinct as such, but it is about on what level it will survive in the information age.

But, I do believe that it is also interrelated to the way history goes, and I think that we need the philosophers right now more than ever before...

What you are saying does tie into the discussion on my thread about philosophy and culture. I definitely don't think that emotion, sensation and intuition are not able to be abandoned because that would be about losing sight of what it means to be human. I do think that many people rely on novels and the arts, and, hopefully, philosophy will draw from these. So, it may come down to the juggling of models and metaphorical views. Hopefully, critical or smart thinking will help lead the way beyond the 'flight of fancy' as you describe what is happening, especially on websites.

I do plan to reply to your response on the other thread, but it will have to be later today. However, just one other point is that you raise the question of superstition and I think that is interesting, and perhaps it is the shadow of reason,and even the reason why people turn to sources such as clairvoyance and ideas of 'new age' philosophies.

I am all in favour of rationality. I just think that it is in the context of the spectrum and do think that Jung's model of knowledge is useful: sensation, feeling, reason and intuition. I think that we all have one which predominate and one or two which are undeveloped, with the idea of having them all functioning to some extent. I was once told by a supervisor that I am too much in 'my head' and in discussion with him, it appeared that I was more dominated by reason than any other function.

It does seem that since the enlightenment reason has been predominant. I think that it is a good thing because it is probably the strongest function, because it is able to bring critical thinking to emotion, intuition and sensation, but they should not be forgotten or ignored.

I only see the limit of knowledge as being a 'problem' if people fail to acknowledge the limits. I am not wishing to overthrow rational searching and thinking, but just believe that there is a danger of human beings becoming inflated with a sense of knowledge and overlooking uncertainty. Of course, Wittgenstein pointed to that so, hopefully, the philosophers won't get too caught up in the sense of all knowing, but those in other fields of knowledge may begin to mistake the map for reality itself.

I agree that we have to use our 'impressive brains' and not expect divine revelation'. The problem is that even rationality and knowledge are limited. We come back to the question interrelated to what is reality, which is, how do we know?

You speak of relationism as the way as a potential for knowing absolutes. I understand that to be about relationships and, really, it will just be yet another theory. We have models and theories but they are not reality itself.

But, I do wonder if you are looking at it more from the perspective of events and politics. Where does mental illness fit into this framework? Based on my experience of working in the mental health care system, so much of depression is bound up with feelings of despair, and apart from those who come into direct contact with the mental health system, so many more are being prescribed antidepressants and related drugs. In addition, even the experience of psychosis arises in the context of cultural breakdown of meaning.

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.