[Phil] living person? NO - (it's actually associated with two people)
[Ig] Slow food? NO

[Ig] Commies? NO
[Indian Pooh-Bah] GODDAMIT NO, I hate G&S.

[Raak] Hypnotist and Hat? NO
[Chalky] Gay rights related? NO is the most helpful answer (altho it could have to do with it - but so could many other things).

[Phil] Fictional people? YES and NO

[Raak] Fictional character? YES. Creator? NO.

Sorry - work keeps getting in the way

[Phil] Education? TANGENTIALLY, but the most helpful answer is NO.
[Ig] C20th character? NO

This thing is an ABSTRACT human construct. It is connected to philosophy but is not a philsophy per se. It is theoretical, but not a theory per se. It is connected with an attitude but is not an attitude per se. It is connected to a belief system, but is not a belief system per se. It is associated with two people, one of whom is fictional. The fictional character does not originate in the C20th. I originally said flatly that it was not connected to Science or Religion, but on further research, I find it is connected to both, tho not in a particularly famous way. Although it might be connected to many things (anarcho-syndicalists, for instance, might consider it connected to anarcho-syndicalism and gay rights campaigners might consider it connected to gay rights), it is not especially connected to mental health, sport or cults, is not an -ism, named after anyone or a law.

Oh, and it is an ideal.

Does that mean I win? I'm off to Rome on Saturday, so hopefully someone will ask a breakthru question before then.

[Ig] Field of study? NO

[Phil] Rights? NOT IN PARTICULAR

[Phil] British? NO

[Ig] Character European? YES! *applause*
[Phil] Actor? NO (but think about it the other way around...)

I'm thinking, but nothing's happening :-(

[Phil] Happiness is...? NO, but you're getting warmer.

[Phil] Person from a work of fiction? YES! *applause*
[Tuj] Bardish? NO

[CdM] The author? NO! *audience gasps*. A character? YES. The answer is neither? CORRECT.

I suppose you could associate it with the author, come to think of it, but I'm not sure that many people do. But I may be wrong in that, so if it helps you to consider that it's associated with three people, then plz do so...

[Phil] Pre-1000CE? NO

[INJ] Clark Kent and alter ego? NO

[Phil] Pre-C20th, YES *applause*

Is anyone ready for a clue?

I think I'm about ready, as my train of thought seems to be stuck for eternity at Clapham.

By far the most significant fact about The Answer so far revealed is that it is "an ideal".

Oh drat - that's the fact that's confusing all my other thoughts. Better sleep on this one then.

[CdM] Miranda Huxley? NO

PS. [Phil] Bear in mind that there is more than one meaning for the word "ideal"...

[Raak] Perfectly Plato? NO

My Greek O-level already reminded me of that :-)

OOPS!!! That was me, not Projoy, sorry!

[Projoy, er Phil] A writer? YES

[INJ] Psychological condition? NO

Another recap: This ABSTRACT - which could be called "an ideal" - is associated with two people: a European (non-British) fictional character from the period 1000-1900CE and a real person (from the same period), who was a writer. It could also be associated with the author (also from the same period) who created the fictional character, who is not the same person as the real-person-writer, and is not Shakespeare, Gilbert, Sullivan, Marx nor Engels. There is a strong philosophy connection, altho it is not "a philosophy" per se, nor "an attitude" nor "a belief system", but is connected to these ideas. There are also science and religion connections. It is not a law, stoicism, eponymous, a platonic ideal, to do with sport, anarcho-syndicalism, a psychological condition, a cult, a method of cooking, a field of study, Man and Superman, "Brave New World" nor to do with education. It could be argued that it is country/culture specific, but also that it isn't (I think no is the most helpful answer).

Anarcho-syndicalists would associate The Answer with Anarcho-syndicalism. Gay rights campaigners would associate it with gay rights.

[Chalky] M&S? NO, see my reply to INJ. Not Nietzsche, Shaw or Siegel and Shuster.

[Raak] Utopia? VERY NEARLY!! *tumultuous applause*

[INJ] Lost world? NO *some applause*

[Phil] Nirvana? NO *audience muttering about Europe*

Bit of a wild stab in the dark, this one.