I don't support Brexit, though I think the way in which it has been carried out is perhaps just as large an issue as the operation itself. A good deal of the campaigning carried out for Brexit focused on xenophobia and patriotism rather than the detailed economic and political consequences. For many (though not all), it was a hubristic move, not a calculated one. The more relevant and less prejudiced reasons for leaving were, in part, ignored. This is the tragedy. It now represents a movement that it needn't: the return of segregated, isolated nation states.

By giving up its membership, the UK will also lose part of its global influence and economic income, not to mention the loss of cultural diversity. The EU currently accounts for 44 percent of all UK exports and 53 percent of all imports; 3.1 million jobs are directly linked to these exports.

I could go on with further details, though I think the wider point is more pressing. We are finally reaching, with the aid of organisations such as the EU, a more extensive and inclusive democracy. This does not ensure but certainly encourages peace and diplomacy among nations. Given the history of the 20th century, is it the right move to place this on the rocks by coming out of the EU? Not only this, but is it the right move to do this without knowing all the terms of leaving? Much is yet unknown. Its riskiness lies largely in the unkempt manner in which it is being handled.

Thoughts do indeed require an original thinker. Nothing can come from nothing. One can not have absolute clarity regarding the identity of such a 'thinker', though common sense would suggest that your existence is validated by your doubting of that very existence. As Descartes once said: cogito ergo sum. In more literal/scientific terms: thoughts are the byproducts of a conscious mind.

However, I am intrigued by alternative opinions on this matter, so I will pose a question: if thoughts were to exist without a thinker, how might they do so and from whence?

The idea I was trying to convey is as follows: since defining art is an elusive task, the more valuable question should be 'what is good art?' Any number of things can be pulled under the great umbrella term 'art', but this does not necessarily make them of any value to the artistic world or vision.

Defining art is a subjective task and is thus impossible to reach a clear consensus on; defining valuable art is a far clearer aim.

A computer can produce art, but without emotion, it will forever lack that which can be deemed 'creativity'. It will have merely completed a series of tasks without a fuller understanding of its own product; it is this understanding and basic human touch that places the brute existence of art into the category of something inherently creative and wonderful. Fundamentally, this requires a level of independence that AI simply does not have.

Art can be seen an expression of the self and of the environment from whence it originated, though it can also exist as its own mouthpiece. It is recognisable without a name or set definition, but simply by an inner, inexplicable connection. Art is limitless because it is impossible to elucidate, but the difficulty lies not in this, not in defining art, rather in finding art that we can appreciate and deem valuable.

How can one rebel against the premises of life if one still continues to live? By living one is accepting, it is purely a matter of how content one can be in that acceptance.

Not many would be able to say they appreciate all the premises of a human life, but since there is no one to hold accountable, in my view, it is rather futile to attempt a rebellion against brute fact. Perhaps you find it difficult, but it simply isn’t possible to act against the laws of nature (biological and physical).

Philosophically, is it not more amenable to accept what we can not change and thus discuss the areas in which it is possible to make an impact?

I am prone to agree with you. The vagueness of the term ‘human nature’ was merely to provoke a little extra thought amongst interlocutors.

Personally, I view a human being through the eyes of biology. For me, human nature is merely the expression of this biology which is thus impossible to overcome.

While we may be capable of overcoming basic urges, the conscious mind that enables this degree of reflection and rationality is, none-the-less, part of human nature; thus, much like yourself, I do not see much validity in the proposition that one could be capable of overcoming that very nature.

"My way to truth is asking the right questions," says Socrates in Plato's Protagoras. For those who claim never to have come into contact with philosophy or never to have revealed any interest in it, I think it is a case of not having been asked (or indeed asking of themselves) the right questions.

In my experience, those who have never studied it formally or for themselves in their free time are usually basing any opinion of the subject upon preconceived ideas about its definition. I have heard people moan 'but it's so boring'. However, if we put aside academic professionals, who has not philosophized on some level during their lifetime? As human beings we are capable of complex emotions and therefore forced to reflect. Even the 'non-philosophers' have been philosophers in a basic sense and so their opinion of the simplistic definition of the field is not what we should be examining, for it does not encapsulate everything within.

In my mind, such distinctions between philosophers and non-philosophers do not exist. We are all philosophers, though of varying degrees of study, capacity, knowledge and attainment.

The premises of life: an ever ambiguous concept. However, they have plagued humanity for centuries. Firstly, I think it highly important to question what these premises may be; does one first take issue with suffering, with meaning or with the meaning of suffering? All three are intriguing paths, though the last option seems to be the most relevant here.

However, before I tread further, I must begin with the assertion (and source of solace) that it is perfectly justifiable and indeed natural to find quarrels with the premises of life. Biologically and emotionally, it is cruel. We are born, we age and we die. However, the sequestered depths of the question lie in the concept of value; if we take such issue with the premise of life, why live?

I am not going to offer a deeper, hidden insight into the preconceived meaning of life, for I do not believe there to be such. However, I will proffer that meaning is important. If we suffer and know not whence or why, we merely exist in the temporal, chaotic world. It is only when we are removed from this, when we suffer and find meaning in the suffering, that we truly live.

Unleash your inner existentialist. We may take issue with the way life is and see no meaning or logic behind it, but if this is so, the importance lies not in this area, but in creating one's own meaning.

As Nietzsche once said: 'To live is to suffer. To survive is to find meaning in the suffering.'

From a philosophical perspective, I suggest research into Camus' Myth of Sisyphus or Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.