Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Trokanmariel]

Though its a trivial physics cynicism, the art of productive philosophical discussion is via the art of listening intently and waiting for ones turn to address.

[avaregidor]

Some of the main points that the post makes are:

• Philosophy is not about winning arguments or proving others wrong, but about exploring ideas and seeking truth.
• Philosophical conversations should be based on evidence, logic, and clarity, not on emotions, biases, or fallacies.
• Philosophical conversations should be open-minded, curious, and humble, not dogmatic, arrogant, or dismissive.
• Philosophical conversations should be cooperative, collaborative, and supportive, not competitive, adversarial, or hostile.
• Philosophical conversations should be enjoyable, stimulating, and enriching, not boring, frustrating, or exhausting.

I agree with most of these points and I think they are very relevant and applicable to any kind of discussion or debate. I also like how the post gives some practical examples and suggestions on how to implement these tips and guidelines in real situations. For instance, the post advises to:

• Ask questions and listen actively to understand the other person's perspective and reasoning.
• Acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of your own position and the other person's position.
• Provide reasons and evidence for your claims and opinions and ask for the same from the other person.
• Avoid personal attacks, insults, or name-calling and focus on the arguments and issues at hand.
• Respect the other person's right to disagree and agree to disagree when necessary.

I think that following these suggestions can help improve the quality and outcome of any philosophical conversation. I also think that having philosophical conversations can be beneficial for our personal growth and development, as well as for our social and intellectual skills. By engaging in philosophical conversations, we can:


• Learn new things and expand our knowledge and understanding of different topics and perspectives.
• Challenge our own assumptions and beliefs and test our critical thinking and reasoning skills.
• Express our thoughts and opinions clearly and persuasively and improve our communication and argumentation skills.
• Appreciate the diversity and complexity of human thought and experience and enhance our empathy and tolerance skills.

[georgejohn12]

very nice, I think if everyone obeys these rules, we can truly explore the tough subjects withour fear of being cussed our or anything. and a side note too, there seem to be alot of fallacies floating around. make sure you'll well aquantied with the laws of logic.

[Thomas3333]

I'm coming at this from a conceptual angle. That conceptual angle, is about the ultra-philosophy awareness of abstract concerns of how to have a conversation, i.e. if you rescind squatter, striker (labour strike), traitor, worker, soldier, deserter, doctor, foreigner, and all et al from the perimeter of the conversation, from the conversation's legal jurisdiction, the inevitable outcome or state of logistic regarding the conversation is stupid.

Nevertheless, that's my thesis of examination.

In lieu, from this angle, from this angle's application, the obvious or apparent obvious (I say apparent, in order to be morally consistent with the premise of the power source, of the ability to rescind all such terms listed; paradox noted) state of things is to enact the trade of ideas socialism, an ironic reference conceptualism.

The ironic reference conceptualism, is a logistic enactment that affords the ability to not imply illegality - leniency to the ultra-moral model please - regarding any other particular individual.

[Pattern-chaser]

Some of the main points that the post makes are:

• Philosophy is not about winning arguments or proving others wrong, but about exploring ideas and seeking truth.
• Philosophical conversations should be based on evidence, logic, and clarity, not on emotions, biases, or fallacies.
• Philosophical conversations should be open-minded, curious, and humble, not dogmatic, arrogant, or dismissive.
• Philosophical conversations should be cooperative, collaborative, and supportive, not competitive, adversarial, or hostile.
• Philosophical conversations should be enjoyable, stimulating, and enriching, not boring, frustrating, or exhausting.

I agree with most of these points and I think they are very relevant and applicable to any kind of discussion or debate. I also like how the post gives some practical examples and suggestions on how to implement these tips and guidelines in real situations. For instance, the post advises to:

• Ask questions and listen actively to understand the other person's perspective and reasoning.
• Acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of your own position and the other person's position.
• Provide reasons and evidence for your claims and opinions and ask for the same from the other person.
• Avoid personal attacks, insults, or name-calling and focus on the arguments and issues at hand.
• Respect the other person's right to disagree and agree to disagree when necessary.

I think that following these suggestions can help improve the quality and outcome of any philosophical conversation. I also think that having philosophical conversations can be beneficial for our personal growth and development, as well as for our social and intellectual skills. By engaging in philosophical conversations, we can:


• Learn new things and expand our knowledge and understanding of different topics and perspectives.
• Challenge our own assumptions and beliefs and test our critical thinking and reasoning skills.
• Express our thoughts and opinions clearly and persuasively and improve our communication and argumentation skills.
• Appreciate the diversity and complexity of human thought and experience and enhance our empathy and tolerance skills.

Beautifully summarised, thank you.

One minor thing bothers me, though, just a little. You commented that "Philosophical conversations should be based on evidence, logic, and clarity, not on emotions, biases, or fallacies." And we would all wish to avoid bias and fallacies if we can, but "emotions"?

Quite a few philosophers are human, and as such, they entertain feelings, emotions, and other non-robotic behaviours. Do these not figure in philosophy? Are we (human) philosophers working so hard just to create a philosophy that will also suit Vulcans, Romulans, and Mr Data? For myself, I consider philosophy that doesn't work for humans, in the real world, to be ... of less value.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm coming at this from a conceptual angle. That conceptual angle, is about the ultra-philosophy awareness of abstract concerns of how to have a conversation, i.e. if you rescind squatter, striker (labour strike), traitor, worker, soldier, deserter, doctor, foreigner, and all et al from the perimeter of the conversation, from the conversation's legal jurisdiction, the inevitable outcome or state of logistic regarding the conversation is stupid.

[...]

To me, at least, it isn't clear where you're going with this. Can you be a little clearer?

[Thomas3333]

I'm coming at this from a conceptual angle. That conceptual angle, is about the ultra-philosophy awareness of abstract concerns of how to have a conversation, i.e. if you rescind squatter, striker (labour strike), traitor, worker, soldier, deserter, doctor, foreigner, and all et al from the perimeter of the conversation, from the conversation's legal jurisdiction, the inevitable outcome or state of logistic regarding the conversation is stupid.

[...]

To me, at least, it isn't clear where you're going with this. Can you be a little clearer?

The listed terms, are a logic of elimination via the methodology of premise that replication is value, that replication is a value science.
In other words, if something can't coherently replicate, and even just be used (admittedly, this vantage point of term of use instead of replication renders the misuse of the term replication, to do with effectiveness), then it is obsolete.

Can the terms squatter, striker, deserter, traitor and foreigner be used coherently, i.e. without infliction - even by the contemporary use of infliction, the concept of ideological infliction is a valid application as well - of damage on the person?

If not, if infliction and indeed ideological infliction of damage is warranted as an inherent trait of the event, then does it stand to reason that any philosophical conversation which prerequisites the use or implication of use of the listed terms is invalid?