Philosophy Discussion Forums

A very helpful article. All of us who are trying to engage in philosophical activity will benefit a lot. However, I would like to add 'good preparation' before engaging in every philosophical conversations. A 'good preparation' will surely make philosophical conversations thought provoking and intellectually enriching.

Dindo wrote:A very helpful article. All of us who are trying to engage in philosophical activity will benefit a lot. However, I would like to add 'good preparation' before engaging in every philosophical conversations. A 'good preparation' will surely make philosophical conversations thought provoking and intellectually enriching.

As axiom of human behavior is:

"You can't play the game if you do not know the rules."

A very helpful article.
In everybody to Philosophy before the dialogue, define how to better communication is very necessary, this will allow us to communicate more effectively

Nom de Plume wrote:Interest in Philosophy comes from all walks of life.

So my question is this... Should we be excluding people through the application of stale, Middle Class Ettiquette as described in preceeding posts? I don't think so!

What is middle class about Ettiquettes? I think the poor are the most polite, always listen instead of talking too much and are generally less opinionated than the middle classes.

True, to be civil includes listening to the other person's ideas and experiences. Doing philosophy is not quite like everyday polite conversations in that doing philosophy often means challenging others' opinions and ideas.

Belinda wrote:True, to be civil includes listening to the other person's ideas and experiences. Doing philosophy is not quite like everyday polite conversations in that doing philosophy often means challenging others' opinions and ideas.

Right! The hopeful premise is that anyone expressing themselves here is aware of the dangers of deception, delusion, self deception, and confusion that are the hallmark of history. They are here because "In many counselors, there is victory." Others remind you of stuff that you might not have on the table of your considerations.

Of course, there remains the problem of dishonesty and "drone" or inadvertent liars. People with the agenda, intentional or foolish, of "darkening counsel." On another thread, Chas alerts us to to some so-called philosophers, scientists, with a dogmatic agenda, who regularly resort to quite shameful, non-philosophic methods to promote that agenda. These are ostriches with their heads in the sand, kicking sand in the eyes of any nearby who are trying to report on what they see going on. Oh,well. Part of the task of good philosophy is overcoming such foolishness. We hope as long as we can that such "know not what they do," and maybe, reading posts playing by the sorts of rules we are discussing here, will decide that objective truth is better than winning arguments.

Groktruth wrote:

Belinda wrote:True, to be civil includes listening to the other person's ideas and experiences. Doing philosophy is not quite like everyday polite conversations in that doing philosophy often means challenging others' opinions and ideas.

Right! The hopeful premise is that anyone expressing themselves here is aware of the dangers of deception, delusion, self deception, and confusion that are the hallmark of history. They are here because "In many counselors, there is victory." Others remind you of stuff that you might not have on the table of your considerations.

Of course, there remains the problem of dishonesty and "drone" or inadvertent liars. People with the agenda, intentional or foolish, of "darkening counsel." On another thread, Chas alerts us to to some so-called philosophers, scientists, with a dogmatic agenda, who regularly resort to quite shameful, non-philosophic methods to promote that agenda. These are ostriches with their heads in the sand, kicking sand in the eyes of any nearby who are trying to report on what they see going on. Oh,well. Part of the task of good philosophy is overcoming such foolishness. We hope as long as we can that such "know not what they do," and maybe, reading posts playing by the sorts of rules we are discussing here, will decide that objective truth is better than winning arguments.

Pursuing real philosophy or the love of wisdom by definition excludes the benefits of lies and intentional self deception. Wisdom results from truth, not self deception. It is like cheating at solitaire. It doesn't make logical sense but many do it.

Good link!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... rt-trivers

Groktruth wrote:Good link!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... rt-trivers

It is a good link. Thanks

In this day and age in which self esteem is so highly regarded, is it really surprising that we value the acquired need to lie to ourselves? This is why I know Secular Interfaith is meaningless. It is just a gathering of people sharing fantasies.

Kant was right when he remarked that "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." (Meta. Morals, Ak 6: 441)

Who wants to experience hell? Most would prefer to play with their remote.

Nick_A wrote:

Groktruth wrote:Good link!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... rt-trivers

It is a good link. Thanks

In this day and age in which self esteem is so highly regarded, is it really surprising that we value the acquired need to lie to ourselves? This is why I know Secular Interfaith is meaningless. It is just a gathering of people sharing fantasies.

Kant was right when he remarked that "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." (Meta. Morals, Ak 6: 441)

Who wants to experience hell? Most would prefer to play with their remote.

There is a plan, which I call Diogenes' lantern, for discerning the Liars (intentional) and the liars (drones, self deceived, deluded, who believe the lies they tell) from the somewhat confused but striving to be honest making posts. Good to have when attempting to have productive philosophic conversations. In many cases, the productivity is all in those listening in. Liars only get something (?) from other liars. Provoked but not edified when someone is making a sincere effort to get the truth, in spite of their own and other's confusion.

Groktruth wrote:

Nick_A wrote: It is a good link. Thanks

In this day and age in which self esteem is so highly regarded, is it really surprising that we value the acquired need to lie to ourselves? This is why I know Secular Interfaith is meaningless. It is just a gathering of people sharing fantasies.

Kant was right when he remarked that "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." (Meta. Morals, Ak 6: 441)

Who wants to experience hell? Most would prefer to play with their remote.

There is a plan, which I call Diogenes' lantern, for discerning the Liars (intentional) and the liars (drones, self deceived, deluded, who believe the lies they tell) from the somewhat confused but striving to be honest making posts. Good to have when attempting to have productive philosophic conversations. In many cases, the productivity is all in those listening in. Liars only get something (?) from other liars. Provoked but not edified when someone is making a sincere effort to get the truth, in spite of their own and other's confusion.

You speak of others but would you agree that to understand the need to lie in others, it is first necessary to experience
it in ourselves? But if this is true, how can it be done? Who can have the need and courage for it? Why bother?

Nick_A,

You ask,
"You speak of others but would you agree that to understand the need to lie in others, it is first necessary to experience
it in ourselves? But if this is true, how can it be done? Who can have the need and courage for it? Why bother?"

The discovery that "...all men (including oneself) are liars" is actually where it all begins, in my experience. Everyone having this brought convincingly to their attention immediately has to make a choice. To search out a way to minimize or eliminate their lying, or to keep on with it. To love the truth or not. Now, when I got it, that "the truth would set me free," get me all the good stuff I wished i could have, and more, I chose the first path. That was fifty years ago, and my most recent version of Diogenes Lantern has these seven steps:

1. Get, or hope for, prepare for, a mentor. Hope to live out your life under the watchful eye of another.
2. Be fussy with definitions. learn the rules for making good definitions. Watch out for words with twisted meanings.
3. Buy the truth. Figure out what your treasure is, and put it out there where you have hope of getting truth.
4. Operate under the premise that anything is possible, and nothing is certain. Know that you never know anything absolutely for sure, but ideas vary in their plausibility.
5. There is a baby in every tub of bathwater. Find it, focus on it. Think about that baby. Throw out the bathwater, and forget about it.
6. Reason to connect what you already find plausible to new possibilities, which can be tested. Do not trust ad hoc explanations, until they have formed the basis of new, confirmed predictions.
7. Yeshua is the only thinker I know of who has claimed that they have a dependable way of knowing the truth. His first step is to admit one's vulnerability to lying, knowingly or unknowingly, accepting the existence of problems with self and enemies, and following His "way of truth" to deal with these. His pathway is rather long, maybe 200 steps, but compared to the stakes and the complexity of the problem, understandably so. Give His program a look.

I am being called to invest in other ways than a public forum. You will understand, I think, about thinking more about what is holy, and pearls. Your presence has been most encouraging. Thanks to you and Scott and others, for making this so lively.

Groktruth wrote:Nick_A,

You ask,
"You speak of others but would you agree that to understand the need to lie in others, it is first necessary to experience
it in ourselves? But if this is true, how can it be done? Who can have the need and courage for it? Why bother?"

The discovery that "...all men (including oneself) are liars" is actually where it all begins, in my experience. Everyone having this brought convincingly to their attention immediately has to make a choice. To search out a way to minimize or eliminate their lying, or to keep on with it. To love the truth or not. Now, when I got it, that "the truth would set me free," get me all the good stuff I wished i could have, and more, I chose the first path. That was fifty years ago, and my most recent version of Diogenes Lantern has these seven steps:

1. Get, or hope for, prepare for, a mentor. Hope to live out your life under the watchful eye of another.
2. Be fussy with definitions. learn the rules for making good definitions. Watch out for words with twisted meanings.
3. Buy the truth. Figure out what your treasure is, and put it out there where you have hope of getting truth.
4. Operate under the premise that anything is possible, and nothing is certain. Know that you never know anything absolutely for sure, but ideas vary in their plausibility.
5. There is a baby in every tub of bathwater. Find it, focus on it. Think about that baby. Throw out the bathwater, and forget about it.
6. Reason to connect what you already find plausible to new possibilities, which can be tested. Do not trust ad hoc explanations, until they have formed the basis of new, confirmed predictions.
7. Yeshua is the only thinker I know of who has claimed that they have a dependable way of knowing the truth. His first step is to admit one's vulnerability to lying, knowingly or unknowingly, accepting the existence of problems with self and enemies, and following His "way of truth" to deal with these. His pathway is rather long, maybe 200 steps, but compared to the stakes and the complexity of the problem, understandably so. Give His program a look.

I am being called to invest in other ways than a public forum. You will understand, I think, about thinking more about what is holy, and pearls. Your presence has been most encouraging. Thanks to you and Scott and others, for making this so lively.

I agree. We are liars. It is what makes the human condition of being in opposition to ourselves tolerable. Yet we know those with the love for wisdom requires sacrificing defending our lies to ourseves in both philosophy and religion.

If we lie to ourselves, how can we seriously attempt to discuss philosophy in search of wisdom? Have you noticed how much modern philosophy has consisted of debates that justify lies rather than the mutual search for wisdom?

I'm happy that you are able to admit it. Most cannot and prefer being insulted at even the mention of such a possibility.

Nom de Plume wrote:Interest in Philosophy comes from all walks of life.

Yesterday, I was in discussion with a young man, raised his whole life as a ward of the state, currently under a parol order and about to enter rehab for the umpteenth time. He is reading The Prince He's developed an historical facination. His love of reading has given him a shy articulation and interlect. It is shy because of the drug induced and aggressive life that has trapped him for so long.

So my question is this... Should we be excluding people through the application of stale, Middle Class Ettiquette as described in preceeding posts? I don't think so!

As a Hedonist, I'm going to recommend the guiding, principles of encouraging pleasure and avoiding pain; coupled with tollerance. In this way, people can really experiment with ideas and truth.

Logic, Reason, Intuition, Passion, Faith, Mishchief, Wisdom, Creativity, Directness etc.... belong in philosophical discussions.

That young man I spoke of, possessed all the qualities of a great thinker, but because his path in life is not the steriotypical middle class upbringing (cause the state mostly offers **** misery) he could not pass muster and would have been banned. Under the principles of Hedonism, because he would have been identified more for the pleasure he brings, would have been guided and influenced by the forum.

Love this . . . could almost be myself of whom you speak! I personally love the passionate intellectual warfare which accompanies philosophical engagements (I believe that is a more appropriate term to describe philosophic "conversation").

My prima facie impressions of this topic took a strongly ethical--not instructive--form. Koodos for the attempt, but I don't think the exclusion of barbaric philosophy (1) meets with my idea of what is "productive"; and (2) is even self-consistent in that it requires us to be intolerant of intolerance.

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:49 pm to add the following --

If we lie to ourselves, how can we seriously attempt to discuss philosophy in search of wisdom? Have you noticed how much modern philosophy has consisted of debates that justify lies rather than the mutual search for wisdom?

So amazing when you think on a subject and jot down a few lines, then come across that same theme almost by happenstance later that day. We must truly live in an in-discrete world full of discrete "somethings!" As for what I said, it was something along the lines of: The task of philosophy is more often driven by man's urge to deny his propensity to create untruths than to actual strive towards truth as such. Let all those who read these words chirp and chatter their muttering gibberish about my groundless cynicism! I've seen the truth about man's untrue heart. Or continue uttering babbling vanity, as I always do, even as I just did!!!

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:07 pm to add the following --

Tantricbruce wrote:

Nom de Plume wrote:Interest in Philosophy comes from all walks of life.

Yesterday, I was in discussion with a young man, raised his whole life as a ward of the state, currently under a parol order and about to enter rehab for the umpteenth time. He is reading The Prince He's developed an historical facination. His love of reading has given him a shy articulation and interlect. It is shy because of the drug induced and aggressive life that has trapped him for so long.

So my question is this... Should we be excluding people through the application of stale, Middle Class Ettiquette as described in preceeding posts? I don't think so!

As a Hedonist, I'm going to recommend the guiding, principles of encouraging pleasure and avoiding pain; coupled with tollerance. In this way, people can really experiment with ideas and truth.

Logic, Reason, Intuition, Passion, Faith, Mishchief, Wisdom, Creativity, Directness etc.... belong in philosophical discussions.

That young man I spoke of, possessed all the qualities of a great thinker, but because his path in life is not the steriotypical middle class upbringing (cause the state mostly offers **** misery) he could not pass muster and would have been banned. Under the principles of Hedonism, because he would have been identified more for the pleasure he brings, would have been guided and influenced by the forum.

Love this . . . could almost be myself of whom you speak! I personally love the passionate intellectual warfare which accompanies philosophical engagements (I believe that is a more appropriate term to describe philosophic "conversation").

My prima facie impressions of this topic took a strongly ethical--not instructive--form. Koodos for the attempt, but I don't think the exclusion of barbaric philosophy (1) meets with my idea of what is "productive"; and (2) is even self-consistent in that it requires us to be intolerant of intolerance.

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:49 pm to add the following --

If we lie to ourselves, how can we seriously attempt to discuss philosophy in search of wisdom? Have you noticed how much modern philosophy has consisted of debates that justify lies rather than the mutual search for wisdom?

So amazing when you think on a subject and jot down a few lines, then come across that same theme almost by happenstance later that day. We must truly live in an in-discrete world full of discrete "somethings!" As for what I said, it was something along the lines of: The task of philosophy is more often driven by man's urge to deny his propensity to create untruths than actually to strive towards truth as such. Let all those who read these words chirp and chatter their muttering gibberish about my groundless cynicism! I've seen the truth about man's untrue heart. Or continue uttering babbling vanity, as I always do, even as I just did!!!

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:08 pm to add the following --

Nom de Plume wrote:Interest in Philosophy comes from all walks of life.

Yesterday, I was in discussion with a young man, raised his whole life as a ward of the state, currently under a parol order and about to enter rehab for the umpteenth time. He is reading The Prince He's developed an historical facination. His love of reading has given him a shy articulation and interlect. It is shy because of the drug induced and aggressive life that has trapped him for so long.

So my question is this... Should we be excluding people through the application of stale, Middle Class Ettiquette as described in preceeding posts? I don't think so!

As a Hedonist, I'm going to recommend the guiding, principles of encouraging pleasure and avoiding pain; coupled with tollerance. In this way, people can really experiment with ideas and truth.

Logic, Reason, Intuition, Passion, Faith, Mishchief, Wisdom, Creativity, Directness etc.... belong in philosophical discussions.

That young man I spoke of, possessed all the qualities of a great thinker, but because his path in life is not the steriotypical middle class upbringing (cause the state mostly offers **** misery) he could not pass muster and would have been banned. Under the principles of Hedonism, because he would have been identified more for the pleasure he brings, would have been guided and influenced by the forum.

Love this . . . could almost be myself of whom you speak! I personally love the passionate intellectual warfare which accompanies philosophical engagements (I believe that is a more appropriate term to describe philosophic "conversation").

My prima facie impressions of this topic took a strongly ethical--not instructive--form. Koodos for the attempt, but I don't think the exclusion of barbaric philosophy (1) meets with my idea of what is "productive"; and (2) is even self-consistent in that it requires us to be intolerant of intolerance.

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:49 pm to add the following --

If we lie to ourselves, how can we seriously attempt to discuss philosophy in search of wisdom? Have you noticed how much modern philosophy has consisted of debates that justify lies rather than the mutual search for wisdom?

So amazing when you think on a subject and jot down a few lines, then come across that same theme almost by happenstance later that day. We must truly live in an in-discrete world full of discrete "somethings!" As for what I said, it was something along the lines of: The task of philosophy is more often driven by man's urge to deny his propensity to create untruths than actually to strive towards truth as such. Let all those who read these words chirp and chatter their muttering gibberish about my groundless cynicism! I've seen the truth about man's untrue heart. Or continue uttering babbling vanity, as I always do, even as I just did!!![/quote]

-- Updated Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:09 pm to add the following --

errr, tried to edit that but made it worse . . .

Hello,

I have managed to piece together a software copy of the original Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fully licenced. Feel free to contact me if you, or anyone you know is looking for it, I am happy ot help.