The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.
This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 6:42 am
Discussion does not make sense when the topic is non-evident. And if the topic is evident discussion doesn't make sense either.
I am expressing what appears to me and this can't be dicussed. Or would you want to argue with me "No this is not what appears to you"
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 8:33 am
Posting on any forum is usually considered to be an interactive pursuit. I don't seek to argue (fight) with you, but only to discuss ideas, and to exchange views ... interactively. You post, but you always find a reason not to interact. I don't understand what you hope to gain from posting here, when you work so hard to avoid conversation?
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 9:55 am
I don't avoid conversation and actually we do converse, don't we? It may be however that the conversation doesn't meet your expectations. I express what appears to me and you may express what appears to you. Don't know whether this then is what you call "exchange views". "view" appears to be an opinion about s.th. but I doubt that I express an opinion about what appears to me when expressing what appears to me. What do you think?
What do I think? I'm not sure what to think. Whatever I try, you seem to deny that we have any common ground on which to discuss ... anything at all. I've tried to tell you what I think, but I'm really wondering what you think. And it seems that what you think is that you aren't willing to offer your own views on anything, except how we have no common ground for further discussion. I'm baffled.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:19 am
What do I think? I'm not sure what to think. Whatever I try, you seem to deny that we have any common ground on which to discuss ... anything at all. I've tried to tell you what I think, but I'm really wondering what you think. And it seems that what you think is that you aren't willing to offer your own views on anything, except how we have no common ground for further discussion. I'm baffled.
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:19 am
What do I think? I'm not sure what to think. Whatever I try, you seem to deny that we have any common ground on which to discuss ... anything at all. I've tried to tell you what I think, but I'm really wondering what you think. And it seems that what you think is that you aren't willing to offer your own views on anything, except how we have no common ground for further discussion. I'm baffled.
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyy wrote:the Pyrrhonian skeptic has the skill of finding for every argument an equal and opposing argument, a skill whose employment will bring about suspension of judgment on any issue which is considered by the skeptic, and ultimately, tranquillity.
I'd say you've mastered the art described in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Whatever I say, your response immediately closes down any further discussion, as the quote above describes. I hope it brings you tranquillity, as promised.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:19 am
What do I think? I'm not sure what to think. Whatever I try, you seem to deny that we have any common ground on which to discuss ... anything at all. I've tried to tell you what I think, but I'm really wondering what you think. And it seems that what you think is that you aren't willing to offer your own views on anything, except how we have no common ground for further discussion. I'm baffled.
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophyy wrote:the Pyrrhonian skeptic has the skill of finding for every argument an equal and opposing argument, a skill whose employment will bring about suspension of judgment on any issue which is considered by the skeptic, and ultimately, tranquillity.
I'd say you've mastered the art described in the Stanford Encyclopedia. Whatever I say, your response immediately closes down any further discussion, as the quote above describes. I hope it brings you tranquillity, as promised.
There are mentioned two aspects of Sextus' skepticism which actually don't appear to be acceptable:
1. "finding for every argument an equal and opposing argument" which I find a tiresome and unnecessary procedure. Also many of Sextus' reasonings don't appear persuasive at all to me.
2. the goal "tranquility" which appears to contradict skepticism's own principle that there are no states that are inherently/by nature "good" or "bad"
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Why expend time and energy in order to ensure that we can't get anywhere? Why not just do nothing instead? Or do you dislike the idea of getting somewhere?
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Why expend time and energy in order to ensure that we can't get anywhere? Why not just do nothing instead? Or do you dislike the idea of getting somewhere?
These words appear to have nothing in common with what I've expressed. Feel free to elaborate to make clear what of my words did cause these thoughts of yours.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Why expend time and energy in order to ensure that we can't get anywhere? Why not just do nothing instead? Or do you dislike the idea of getting somewhere?
These words appear to have nothing in common with what I've expressed. Feel free to elaborate to make clear what of my words did cause these thoughts of yours.
I don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 10:55 am
I've repeatedly stated in this forum that I like skepticism, especially pyrrhonism. Not the whole package but especially the cognitive conduct implied by it in book I of the "outlines" written by Sextus Empiricus. Sextus himself called his skepticism "philosophy" but I am not sure. His "philosophy" was attacked by dogmatist philosophers to be "the end of all philosophy" and it sometimes appears to me that ultimately that may apply.
What appeared so attractive about his skepticism was the total absence of any kind of speculative views or claims. Appeared attractive to me - certainly due to my history of engagement in philosophical, especially epistemological analysis.
Why expend time and energy in order to ensure that we can't get anywhere? Why not just do nothing instead? Or do you dislike the idea of getting somewhere?
These words appear to have nothing in common with what I've expressed. Feel free to elaborate to make clear what of my words did cause these thoughts of yours.
I don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
What? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Atla wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 12:09 pm
Why expend time and energy in order to ensure that we can't get anywhere? Why not just do nothing instead? Or do you dislike the idea of getting somewhere?
These words appear to have nothing in common with what I've expressed. Feel free to elaborate to make clear what of my words did cause these thoughts of yours.
I don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
What? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 12:53 pm
These words appear to have nothing in common with what I've expressed. Feel free to elaborate to make clear what of my words did cause these thoughts of yours.
I don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
What? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.
What's the point of doing that?
Sometimes posting here is fun.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Atla wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 1:13 pm
I don't buy it, but again: why do you expend time and effort here trying to show that expending time and effort here is wrong?
What? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.
What's the point of doing that?
Sometimes posting here is fun.
I also usually post for fun but I can't comprehend what would be fun in what you're doing
What? I am not trying to show anything to be wrong or right. I am expressing what appears to me.
What's the point of doing that?
Sometimes posting here is fun.
I also usually post for fun but I can't comprehend what would be fun in what you're doing
No problem. Not everything is everbody's cup of tea.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
I also usually post for fun but I can't comprehend what would be fun in what you're doing
No problem. Not everything is everbody's cup of tea.
You mean you find it fun because you're masochistic?
I have no idea what of my words causes the appearance of a masochist in your head. Obviously my words do cause you pain, but why and what exactly causes you pain?
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
stevie wrote: ↑July 4th, 2022, 1:42 pm
I have no idea what of my words causes the appearance of a masochist in your head. Obviously my words do cause you pain, but why and what exactly causes you pain?
Pain? More like amusement. You know that beneath the shallow smugness you're exhibiting, it's you who's lacking. Which you purposely put on display here because you want people to see and judge it. So, it looks like masochism