Philosophy Discussion Forums

ontologic_conceptualist wrote:It is my belief that from what I've seen not just here but many other philosophy sites, remember not to confuse philosophy with psycology, believe it or not, it can get close, but remember no matter what, never judge, just because your personal philosophy sucks does not mean the other persons does & be open minded with an immagination and a great sense of humor, this is philosophy, "What is being", I love listening to others & looking into their souls, even though I feel I am complete on many levels, I always end up learning more about myself & that is fun !!!

Ape:
Hi O_C,
You are so right! The more complete we are, the more we end up being more complete by what others teach us!

Have you ever thought that there is
the Philosophy of Psychology
and
the Psychology of Philosophy?

Scott - Was your recent post about appropriate philosophical debate a retort to MY recent posts?
Have I spoken too offensively?

It is my belief that philosophers( and also scientists and religionists) ought to be sufficiently post-modern to consider eccentric points of view.

However, I have difficulty distinguishing between eccentric points of view and disruptive tangents.

Any help in this matter gratefully received.

Belinda wrote:It is my belief that philosophers( and also scientists and religionists) ought to be sufficiently post-modern to consider eccentric points of view.

However, I have difficulty distinguishing between eccentric points of view and disruptive tangents.

Any help in this matter gratefully received.

Belinda, all I can offer is that of time and exploration. Delving in to either the eccentric or disruptive will show the underlying meaning. In some instances it does not take much time. Have also found that the disruptive person does not break from habit very often. My advice is only from face to face dialogue, but do believe that similar traits come across in other means of communication as well.

I must say that I appreciate Scott's original posting in an attempt to have productive dialogue. I belong to many forums covering diverse topics and find some of the tone and comments made to stifle dialogue and not encourage it. Encouraging dialogue is my aim as I seek to gain more information to gain more knowledge and hopefully end up with wisdom.

So I say bring on the eccentricity - I love it.

jb

Scott

I think you have made some excellent recommendations.

I don't know if we can all adhere to all the guidelines because of our different natures. For example, I am guilty of writing long posts. People are reading and responding to many of them, so I must believe. in spite of my admitted shortcomings, some people feel it is worth the time to read and respond to them. There are also some exceptionally intelligent and extremely articulate people who participate in our discussions. I appreciate and welcome their comments. In fact I feel honored that they feel this site is worthy. I also understand people become accustomed to speaking in a certain vernacular when among their own peers. You may be asking a lot in asking them to do otherwise and still make the point in which they are attempting to make. Their discussions may not be meant for everyone. Some of us may have to actually take the effort to look up the definitions of words we don't understand.

The only comments I am concerned about, are those that are personal in nature. Name calling. Innuendos and accusations that imply someone with an opposing view is intellectually inferior. The event of these transgressions have been rare and the derogatory comments have been limited.

I hope I don't seem to critical. I love this site and sincerely appreciate you guys who are the administrators of this site. I encourage you to let us know when you think we are being rude or otherwise disruptive. These are bad behaviors unfitting of a philosopher who truly wants to be objective and fair. In so far as our writing styles, please bear with us. Writing habits are hard to break.

Very good advice Scott.

JPhillips, Although i agree with your sentiments, i have re-read Scott's advice and find that he is not suggesting forum-users negate the use of complex language, but to do so only when neccessary to make their opinions unambiguous.

I for one, am more than happy to look up the meanings of words i haven't come across. I think this forum is a great learning resource and will no doubt expand anyone's mind, if they give it the chance.

However, in the interests of inclusivity, posts should be made as accessible as possible. This way, there is more opportunity for discussion. Surely, the more people we have reading and thinking on each topic, the more depth we can explore and perhaps be made aware of astonishingly different viewpoints which could be marred/barred by dare i say elitist language.

I hope i haven't caused offence. I did not mean this to be a targeted jibe at any one person. It's only that your post (JPhillips) initiated my thoughts.

Dougsta

Your comments are not in the least bit offensive. Calling me an idiot would be offensive.

Appreciate your comments.

For as far as it may be possible my approach is one of first looking to take philosophical suggestion first from a deep analysis of one`s personal life experience in society, for in so doing you are beginning an in depth study of self, and all, or, most of that society. Bt the piling of suggestion onto suggestion the philosophy of people can all be done by this approach, and how else to be novel whilst also in demonstrable truth? - It shouldn`t be enough to borrow our thinking from others, for it shall never be more than just that, borrowed.

I have been on this site briefly, compared to most of you, yet it's been a life-time in some ways because of some personal attacks/criticism via the PM option.

I do my best to forward concepts with attention to spelling (English) and putting forward
topics , that I consider to be of potential interest. I don’t know until, I do.

I am more than capable of introducing esoteric terminology into my presentations and arguments, I
choose however not to do so for the following reason; I am not on this site to write a paper. I am
on this site to have some fun and exchange ideas, listen, comment, listen, forward, listen, comment,
listen and eventually, depending on the subject, surrender or establish a point of view that may help
someone.

This site has enormous potential, it’s a wonderful platform for people of all works of life to engage in
the possibilities of the; perhaps-not-yet-considered, exchange of ideas, or just to comment; the open
ended game of win-win, win-loose, loose-win, but always in the spirit of play done with respect, dignity and the
tolerance of other points of view.

If someone sends you a rude or personally attacking PM, please forward it to me by copying and pasting it in a new message addressed to me.

This is a very good guideline and I suppose that it could be applied to all types of conversations. I remember seeing a book called Clearer Thinking by author A E Mander which was excellent but cannot locate a copy. Can anyone help?

Hi I am new to this forum and wish to thank you for your post and add that this approach could be used for all types of conversations with very pleasing results.

To Ape
There is only psychology of philosophy when the concerned philosophy is not also reality, for there may be more than one absolute truths.
There is only philosophy of psychology when that philosophy is concerned with psychological principal, but never for instinctive truth.
Of society, and of each individual, the more genuine and good instinct to our disposal, the more revealing are our independant thoughts.

I find that often, those who enjoy ruleless and guideless philosophy are those with no way or care to demonstrate what they say.

Perhaps it's because we're past the point of trying to explain something you already know.I've never even talked to you but i'm willing to bet that once you've cooled down any philosophy to it's core temperature,you'll find an absolute zero probability of learning anything new.Then again chances are we're insane,that would definitely explain a lack of demonstration on our part,either that or the privilege of witnessing a rope a dope at it's finest on your part.

Rust
I`m trying to respond but your sentences have a very unusual construction - The two of us are past the point of explaining something which I know? If that does make sense(?), surely it`s ment only for you to understand its meaning? What do you mean by guideless philosophy, because that seems an unusual expression? Do you mean philosophy which speaks immediately of truth, rather than taking people on a more gradual journey?, philosophy which isn`t guided, or philosophy which you think cannot be guided? Ruleless "philosophy"(?), a philosopher that might apply more than one set of rules according to the circumstances which the issue presents? It can only mean that, surely? I`m not even sure from this what your considering would qualify as a rule? How do you cool down philosophy to its core temperature? I know that you know what you mean, but to me it`s still only misleading(?) Neither of us are explaining anything, I understand that part, but I suppose I just think that you`ve begun to do a far better job of this than me. I can clarify my last post, or, at least try to.