So the answer doesn't matter. That's what I think too.

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.

Well no doubt themes and ideas will emerge, but will they be good ideas? What will you get out of it? All I see is verbiage.

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 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 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. — Jack Cummins

I agree. But I think that the real point of metaphysics is to simplify experience and enable human consciousness to transit from multiplicity to unity.

Speaking of ideas, how do you view Plato's "ideas" or "forms"?

So the answer doesn't matter. That's what I think too. — Daemon

The answer not only matters, but you’re living it.

Too stupid to understand it? That’s your business. In that case, throw out medicine too.

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 ? — Jack Cummins

"Logical positivism", simply put, is the thesis that all sentences which cannot be empirically verified are meaningless; self-consistently, then, sentences describing "logical positivism" are also meaningless – thus refutes itself (like e.g. relativism, global skepticism, nihilsm, deconstructionism). Logical positivists are just scientistic folks like Ayer who profoundly get Witty's TLP wrong. So, no, it's a only "starting point for" nonsense.

Maybe you can include an image in the OP. It's a beautiful painting

I'm actually a bit shocked. I used to have relatives near Boston. I've been there twice. They never took me to the Museum of Fine Arts. Scientists really don't appreciate true art.

I see thread discussions as experiments. Some work better than others. — Jack Cummins

:up: (Ideally.)

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 — Xtrix

:clap: :fire:

(A path I took deeper into the same primeval haunted forest ... re: Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Peirce/Dewey, Merleau-Ponty, ... Lakoff, Kahneman, Metzinger)

[delete]

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 think that many people do go through life so unconsciously and that the way forward is to try to become more aware. But, it can be a painful path and just in recent discussions which I have been having with @Madfool, I have been speaking of the philosophical danger. Just now, he has started a thread on this and I have just responded within that one, speaking of how we can feel that certain philosophical outlooks can make us see ourselves as being of absolutely no significant at all. I believe that your own view is that we can move from this, to creating meaningful existence.

I see it as a complex and delicate art. Out own lives may come in all forms with a mixture of pleasure and pain. How do we make sense of these? I think that it does need to involve a sense of authenticity, or genuineness. We do have to try to face facts of existence philosophically. As you and others realise, I have asked questions about philosophical mysteries. I didn't find any real answers and I am not sure that I ever really expected any, because if they could be found, I am sure that the philosophers would have discovered them long ago.

Personally, I do believe that it is so hard to establish any real metaphysical certainties. This can lead into two possible opposing directions. We can get to the point where we believe that there is nothing beyond us, or we can go into mystic flights of fantastic dreams. However, it may be a whole realm of possibilities. We may believe that there are no supernatural powers beyond us, but still enter into fantasy in the form of fictive fantasy, but with an awareness that it is indeed fictive.

One other possibility is of looking for what Aldous Huxley spoke of as 'A Perennial Philosophy', which is more a way of looking at the overview of recurrent themes, underlying various quests, which looks at these, but in a very neutral manner, rather than with an emphasis on establishing these as actual metaphysical facts.

r

I don't get it.

Having looked at the painting, one can tell why he was in debt and suicidal. I've seen better art on the side of van. He's no Henri Rousseau that's for sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionism#/media/File:Henri_Rousseau_-_Le_R%C3%AAve_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

As for the questions:

' Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going ' — Jack Cummins

I don't think they are:

a unique statement of questions about the human condition. — Jack Cummins

...rather like the painting, they could have been formulated by a 10 year old.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

It would go quite well in my bathroom!

Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going — Jack Cummins

I am indifferent to the painting and the questions.

Self-reflection works for some people and many questions will do. Seems to me it is often the wrong people who are self reflective - those who need to reflect don't and those who don't need to often paralyse themselves with fruitless, churning self-analysis.

These three questions do not interest me anywhere near as much as: What Am I Doing? What Do I Want? Who am I? I regularly find myself pondering these as I go about my business. It is not always possible to obtain answers.

Interesting response. I can relate to what you say about self-reflection. I get the sense that it’s about each of us working towards a balance between self-reflection and faithful action. Self-reflection without definitive action is fruitless; definitive action without self-reflection is ignorant.

As for your alternate questions, might I suggest that the difficulty in obtaining answers may have something to do with not fully understanding where you’re from, what you are or where you’re going....

Just a thought.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Gauguin_-_D%27ou_venons-nous.jpg

Here's where you can download the image and some information about copyright. If anyone's interested

These three questions do not interest me anywhere near as much as...... — Tom Storm

Same here. To “untie philosophical knots in our understanding” starts at home.

might I suggest that the difficulty in obtaining answers may have something to do with not fully understanding where you’re from, what you are or where you’re going.... — Possibility

You can suggest it, but you'd be wrong. :razz:

These three questions do not interest me anywhere near as much as: What Am I Doing? What Do I Want? Who am I? I regularly find myself pondering these as I go about my business. — Tom Storm

That's neurosis, not skepsis.

It is not always possible to obtain answers.

Ever questioned. Ever failed. No matter. Question again. Fail again. Fail better. :smirk:

That's neurosis, not skepsis. — 180 Proof

Guilty. I am much more interested in myself than in reality. :razz:

Onanist. :strong:

Don't tell my mum...

:zip:

I am not sure about the actual construction of metaphysics any longer. I think that when I first began thinking about philosophy, which was before I began questioning the existence of God, my own starting point for my own argument was from thinking about God. During my experience of questioning religious beliefs, I began thinking from a psychological point of view. I began to frame my own thoughts around actual supernatural entities.

Nowadays, I have not adopted the view that there is nothing beyond human beings and empirical reality but just think that it is hard to establish with any certainty. I do believe that this has been seen by many thinkers. Kant recognised the role of intuition, but as A J Ayer, points out, we need to go beyond intuition, with rational explanations. One way of doing this can be through a priori principles , and Ayer points to possible creation of tautologies.

So, my understanding of human beings and our knowledge comes with certain reservations. This applies to the idea of Plato's theory of forms. I do believe that the cave metaphor is useful for pointing to the way we don't have direct access to the knowledge. But, that is not to say that they don't exist, and I do believe that we can probably see a parallel between the idea of the forms and Jung's ideas about archetypes. The archetypes are manifested in dreams and the enfoldment of our life dramas, so, for this reason the symbolic dimensions of our existence are important, and are probably easier to speak about than any objective metaphysical reality.

Thanks for providing a link to Gauguin's picture in your post.

You're welcome, Jack.

I think that ideas of how to see the universe and consciousness are beginning to see human beings more in terms of self organisation of consciousness, as argued by one writer on this site@Pop has suggested. This is in contrast to metaphysical systems which began from objective principles outside our own consciousness.

In particular, I do think that Plato's analogy of the cave was useful for expressing the way in which we are seeing illusionary shadows of reality rather than reality itself. However, I think that one potential fault of this was that it still encourages the idea of looking for objective reality outside of consciousness, rather than starting from the processes of our own consciousness.

So you are not impressed by Gaugin's painting or his title? Art is so subjective and, even the way we form questions too. All I can do is offer a brief summary of the way his title questions work for me. The question is where we come from offers a neat little enquiry into origins, allowing for the scope of the debate between the religious and the scientists. The second one, which I chose to focus on, and I cut out the rest of my title, is about looking at one it means to be a human being. This is about how we work, mind and body and how we are significant in the world and the universe. The final one of where we are going is looking at the future, and it allows for the the consideration of what we do to the planet.

Of course, I am not saying that his title is some kind of model. I only brought it to the forum because it throws 3 questions together. My discussion began with a more detailed discussion of progress. However, I am aware that this is being debated in the science thread. If that thread and one other thread on nature had not been going I might have chosen to try to develop this area further. But, I am specifically interested in trying to think about what it means to be human, so I have tried to develop the thread in that way.

I realise that the questions may interest some forum members and not others. I don't know how much further the thread will go, or in which way, so really I just keep an open mind for any potential areas of debate and dialogue it may stimulate.