I agree that the painting is lovely. I googled the image but it is a copyright, so I don't think it could be put on this site. Also, I don't upload at the moment, I just use this site to write. So, I should just recommend that people reading the thread look up the image. But, I do love art and making it.

I see thread discussions as experiments. Some work better than others. I do try to develop them in such a way that they come together in a way which work as being readable for people who log into the thread. However, interaction on this forum is an unusual arena of discussion, and apart from engaging in writing, each of us comes away with different results in our own thinking experience, and I am sure that this is so variable.

I keep an open mind towards various contemplative approaches. I am trying to be careful about metaphysics at the moment though, because it is so easy to end up thinking in a convoluted way. I read as widely as possible, and sometimes try and read too many different, contrasting Ideas at the same time. So, I am trying to achieve a certain amount of clarity, and trying to untie philosophical knots. I believe that this is important in our development of ideas, otherwise it may be like trying to paint pictures with brushes which have been left soaking in dirty water.

I do think that answering the question of what are we is important, but I don't think that it is easy. So, I see it as being more of a topic for reflection. I am hoping that in this thread, through collaboration discussion that certain themes and ideas may emerge. I see it as a topic for philosophy discussion, but one which can draw from many disciplines of thought.

Your question of whether I blame science for nuclear weapons and climate change is interesting. I don't think I do. It probably comes down to blaming humanity, whether it is for developments in religion or science.

I think sure that I go back into loops at times, after I appear to have already moved on in thinking. If I look at what I have written and edit it, I sometimes notice certain tangents. This happens more if I am writing under time pressure and in several threads in one day. But, I do think I was have some inconsistencies in my thinking and part of the reason why I engage in philosophy is to try to smooth these out, and I see it as an ongoing process.

I come from a religious background, which I have questioned, but I am not an actual atheist. I keep an open mind. You speak of the whole question of turning to religion or science and that is interesting because I do have friends who are religious and tell me to pray. I remember last year when the pandemic began that one of my friends said that we are at the end times, as described by the Bible. I think that there are a lot of people who do believe that we are. While I am not religious, I grew up thinking we were and, at times, I do notice such ideas coming into my head. But, generally my outlook does incorporate science, but I try to be take a wide multidisciplinary approach.

One thought which I have just thought is whether Banno, or other writers on this site are taking science to be mainly the physical sciences, or to include the social sciences too? I am not sure that it matters entirely, although if the social sciences are included that means more of a critical analysis perspective.

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?

I began using the term philosophical danger during discussion with you on one of your threads and I think that you saw it like a movie, often with a girl going somewhere she should not go. You also spoke of cats' 9 lives and wondering if you had used yours. I wonder how many lives we have on the forum and whether there are threads where we should not go. I also see dangers as being related to untying philosophical knots, and like being in a Celtic maze or labyrinth.

It does seem that certain experiences seem to be too harsh to make much sense of as a learning curve of experience. Actually, there have been times when I have found people suggesting that certain experiences should be seen in that way as being a bit too much. But, however we interpret our experiences, it does seem that there is a lot of suffering. Also, it does appear that some have more to endure than others. I think that the worst thing is when people have difficult experiences repeatedly, with hardly any break.

Also, we are taken aback by lockdowns etc, so I don't know how most of us would cope with situations like in Palestine. I don't think that I would cope very well. As it is, I wake up wondering what emails I will find, and I often get thrown off course by little stresses, which I build up in my mind.

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.

Yes, we're both still in there. I sometimes do try to take breaks from the forum, but I do find that if I haven't got a thread going I feel that something is missing. However, that is probably because of life in lockdowns. There is a lot of easing in England at the moment, but it does seem that the Indian variant is increasingly in England at the moment.

I don't know how the pandemic and lockdown restrictions are where you are. But, we are not used to all of this. If we have to have any more lockdowns I don't know how many will cope. In some ways, I believe that I have felt able to cope, because I love reading and writing. But, probably some people have really struggled, especially if they don't like spending any time alone. If anything, I am getting so used to being alone that I worry how I will cope with going to social events again. But, if there are more lockdowns, I think that it will bring so much poverty. It is definitely a big challenge, whether we view it as being the course of nature or not.

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.

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.

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

I have already said that I am not against science and really I am not sure of the point the thread is even trying to make, because it is not as if it is being opposed by loads of evangelists who are trying to argue that evolution is false.

On this site, there seems to be a big divide between those who believe in God and those who are atheists. However, I don't think that this would simply be about those who believe in God being against science and atheists favouring science. The relationship between science and religion is complex. Of course, some religious believers were opposed to science. Also, religious ideas have often contributed to political ideologies, but these probably incorporated science. We all use science everyday in most aspects of life, in ways we take for granted.

But science is such an umbrella term, and I don't really feel that we need to praise science because it does not require us to do so, like we were taught to revere and worship God. But, I appreciate medical science and a lot of comforts connected to technological progress.

I think that I am more at that point now and this thread was created about 6 weeks ago, but it has not fizzled out completely. My latest thread, especially the posts written this afternoon are a fairer reflection of my current thoughts on metaphysics.

Cultural bias does fit into the picture, in relation to our beliefs. For example, I was raised as a Catholic, and even though I have questioned these ideas a lot, I am aware that such ideas do still affect the way I am inclined to think about many aspects of philosophy.

Let's hope that the scientists address the problems before it is too late. But, I don't think that we should sing any hymns of praise for them until there is a certain amount of evidence that the ideas are being put into practice with substantive effects.

This thread is starting its sixteenth page and the mysteries have not been solved yet. If they could be, I am sure that the leading philosophers would have come up with the answers, but I do believe that we probably all need to make our own unique quests. It does seem that we often have to acknowledge that we remain trapped in Plato's cave.

I admit to confusion, but I think that many try to form definitive answers, and, really, I feel that their approach is more of a philosophical danger, as I have named it.

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.

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 got a bit confused because I had not come across the Arnish and I have known a guy called Anish. I would imagine it is very difficult to manage without technology. I would miss playing CDs too much, and I couldn't manage without a mobile phone, as most things are dependent on them for most of the things we do. I use mine to read and write on this site. If my phone went wrong I would be rather lost until I got it fixed or got a new one.

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.

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 will just say that even though I was partly about where is life was going it was not intended to be in competition to yours because I thought about it before I read yours and mine was meant to be more of a general reflection on the human condition.

I got involved in discussion earlier on the topic of ecological problems in the thread on science. I think that it is unfortunate that we wrote our threads at the time when the thread on science is going. will say that as much as I want to see an end to the pandemic I am not convinced that it will truly be over for many years.

I am not Amish, whoever he is. I think that I made it clear that I am not actually against science per se. Of course, I use computers and I am starting to spend more and more time on my phone.

I think that it is true to say that it is about the need for application and regulations of technology, but I don't have complete confidence in many world leaders in doing this. I am sure the approaches vary so much throughout the world. As it is now, I fear that we are on the brink of seeing catastrophic events and effects in the world, as a result of the misuse of science. Climate change is accelerating to such an extent, and from my reading of this, it could mean that conditions become unbearable in some Third World countries. It is also so hard to predict or picture how life will be in our countries in two to three centuries time, and on a much larger scale.

On this site, most of us are from developed nations Many are from the USA, and I am from England. I believe that it is too easy to see things from the narrow confines of our lives, rather than from a more global perspective, and with a view to future generations. I am not an antinatalist but can see that kind of critique as pointing to a possible future which may be extremely difficult for many people, especially when petroleum resources are diminished. I know from some posts that you have written you are concerned for science to be able to address the environmental issues. I do agree with you basically, but I think that it is going to take a lot of work to ensure that science works to resolve the problems which have been created.

I believe that it is likely that scientists probably come from various political angles. Also, funding of science is probably dependent on structures which are interconnected to power structures. I am definitely in favour of addressing ecological threats, but I think that it is very complicated and I feel that the future of the human race is very precarious. Rather just sit back and praise science, it may be that we need to see how we can progress to try to avert some of the hazards which are linked to the way science has progressed, to try to safeguard future humanity and other lifeforms.

I do agree that with you that nuclear weapons are science mis- applied for political reasons. I was not ignoring what you said, but just trying to write a very short summary of potential problems of science. I believe that, in reality, the topic could be so extensive really, especially where the political aspects of science come in.

You speak of the need to orchestrate science definitely there is a need for it to come up with some solutions to problems it creates, like pollution and damage to ecology. Really, I think that any approach which sees science as completely positive is extremely one sided. Do we assume that nuclear weapons are completely beneficial?

I think that praising science may be a bit premature because if humanity continues in the direction it is going, in using resources as it had done future generations, and other life forms are likely to suffer, and mass destruction through nuclear weapons presents a potential threat.So, while it appears that science has won on this site, I don't think it is nearly as simple in reality. Even beyond ecology, many of the solutions create problems as well as solving them. The most obvious is the way in which many forms of medication have side effects. This usually does not mean that we would not want to take medication, but often, newer drugs are being created to have lesser side effects.

I think that part of the reason why the tone on this thread is extremely positive towards science is because a lot of people in the world feel that science in the form of vaccines are being used to overcome the pandemic. I am certainly willing to have the vaccine and hope that it provides a solution globally. However, it is not straightforward, or completely clear that the vaccine has solved the problem, with potential mutations. I believe that the battle is not over in any definitive way, and it could be with us for many years to come potentially.

I am sure that science will win on this thread, but it doesn't mean it has won completely in the world. I am not against science, but I see it as mixture of potential for benefit or harm, with a lot of unanswered questions about the future.

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.

I have no definite idea of how long I wish to be part of this forum. However, I can say that it has played a significant value in my life in the last few months. I don't know how I would have coped with lockdown isolation without it. I continue to read and write on it, but with certain reservations when it becomes a field of attack.

I have woken up and found that people are having all kinds of fierce arguments on threads which I have created. I have experienced mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I have felt annoyed, but, at the same time, felt glad that people have even logged into threads which I have written because they are my biggest contact with other people and the real world.

So, I see my participation with the site as being a potential source of stress, but also the best means I have of communication with other people. I will juggle this in my choice about engaging on this site on a longer term. I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this.

Many people may wish to wonder about the role of nature, and our ability to work with it, for worse or better. Some people write threads and get no replies whatsoever, and it is probably a bit of the law of the jungle here on this site, as in the world of nature which you describe. But, I am inclined to think your question of nothing being wrong is not strong enough, because many can see so much which is calling for attention.

Some ot these issues may be connected to ones being addressed within the one focusing on science.I find that each time I write a thread discussion, some of the issues are already being explored in other threads already, I do believe that yours is important for considering the question of how we should consider our role in trying to find solutions to the problems which face the human race, in the struggle for survival.

I think that we have to go beyond any potential paranoia about the site. Each one of us comes with our sets of values, and shortcomings. As far as I can see, this site tries to be as fair and open towards diverse ideas, as possible. What more can we ask for?

However, as I have just looked back as I am writing this, and I think that some people would like it to be less open, so, in that sense, I don't know what to say, and it all goes back to biases, and the social and political construction of ideas. I appreciate this site for what it is now, but I am aware that at some point, I may feel attacked to the extent where I feel a need to withdraw from it, in order to retain a sense of personal integrity and right to retain my own ideas, as a free human being.

I don't wish to derail the thread, and I have absolutely no bad feelings towards Banno, but I do wonder what you mean by winning? Is it about arguments being more creditable? I would be surprised really if anyone, including the most evangelical religious believers, were completely opposed to science.

However, I must admit that I was a bit surprsised to discover recently that one of my closest friends still believes that Adam and Eve were literal people. So if I ever have a party, I wish that Banno, you and others could be present, for some lively discussion.

Despite what I said, I think that it is right to question any site we are logging onto and writing on. We need to question what we are getting involved in rather than doing everything blindly.

I most certainly hope that your thread is far from over, because from my perspective you are raising important questions. I wonder if you should have put 'poll' in the title. I am just raising questions about your title because I do think that the topic could have received more replies rather than just from myself and one other person. However, it may be that the responses we get do depend partly on the dynamics of the forum at any given moment. But, at least this response will keep it in the agenda for now...

I am a bit surprised that you think that what is important is whether Banno is winning to be the essential issue. Surely, science and all other methods of investigation, and of knowledge, as serving humanity, are far more important than proclaiming Banno as the ultimate expert. Personally, I think that we need to go beyond egos, and praise, and look to what works in the development and use of ideas and knowledge.

I find your thread is important but I do wonder about its title. It queries whether nothing is wrong. Of course, it's your thread but the wording of your title does not seem powerful enough to me, because rather than the question of whether we could say nothing is wrong, we could even go in the other way, and ask is everything wrong?

I think that you are right to see science as a tool rather than as end in itself. It involves investigations based on values rather than being embraced as a reality in its own right. It seems to me that while we may turn to science to seek solutions to problems, especially the climate crisis, it was the pursuit of science, as a way of triumphing over nature and ecology, which may have contributed to the problems which humanity are facing.

Science is extremely important, but perhaps it has been placed on a pedestool. The wording of this thread is interesting and I wonder whether it was done intentionally, with the idea of 'praise' being given to science. The idea of praise was often given to God, in the hands of religious believers. Could it be that God has been dethroned, but with science replacing the idea of the transcendent?

But, the question is whether science will be more helpful in sorting out the mess we are in, especially climate change. Science can formulate and provide evidence, but that is interrelated to the political agendas which are override the use of this knowledge.

I think that looking at problems from various perspectives and angles helps, rather than being locked into one specific point of reference, helps one avoid being too narrow.

It is interesting to hear that you feel that you could not express your opinions except as anonymously. I am not anonymous and even have my photo on display, because I feel that I have so little platform of any identity or expression of ideas at all. It is such a contrast of experience.